When In Doubt, Look About

The Supreme Court recently decided that the Pentagon's military commissions, established to prosecute suspected terrorists, violated international law and were not authorized by Congress. The second part of this rationalization makes some sense. Congress does make the laws, and if they hadn't authorized them, so be it. Congress should pass the law, establish the tribunals, and prosecute and execute the terrorists.

However, it's the 1st part that continues to bug me. The Supreme Court routinely and continuously cites international law when deciding cases. Justice Anthony Kennedy said in an interview that when you can't find the appropriate case law for precedent in American courts, then it is right and proper to use international decisions to justify their decisions.

This is straight from Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constituion:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States.

That's their job. To interpret the U.S. Constituion and decide if laws passed are Constitutional or not. That's it. Not make decisions and create law based upon foreign precedent or their own personal feelings. (I say feelings as thought isn't a component most times, or they would actually do the job that they were appointed to do.) As an example, I'm still waiting for someone to show me the words "Right to Privacy" that the Supreme Court said was in the Constituion, or how the words "Right to Bear Arms" isn't.

As an aside, isn't it interesting how the radical leftist groups who protest the World Trade Organization and World Bank summits, because of their supposed disagreement with these groups' 'One-World' or 'New World Order' non-stated goals have no issue whatsoever with the Supreme Court using foreign precedent, ostensibly pushing the United States closer to that 'One World' concept?