Power Lines John Hinderaker criticizes Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgs extended defense of considering foreign judicial decisions, as do Mark Levin and Ed Whelan, who notes that he criticized much the same speech more than a year ago.
My own analysis of Justice Breyers similar line of argument is here. Stated simply, the Breyer-Ginsburg line of argument is judge-made "living constitutional law" hiding behind a selective appropriation of what one might call the law of nations. Ginsburg clearly doesnt understand--or at least doesnt want to understand--why the Founders and political leaders in the early republic cared about international public opinion. We were to be a light unto nations, inspiring others to adopt our example. This was not submission to international public opinion, but an attempt to lead it. And while Id have less trouble with the Ginsburg-Breyer position if it adhered in a disciplined manner to a traditional understanding of natural law, it of course doesnt, following rather an evolving elite transnational consensus unmoored in anything other than the intuitions of those who participate in it. If I wanted to be ruled by the intellectual descendants of John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin, Id vote them into office.