Here is Power Line, yesterday, on a debate about the role of foreign judgments in deciding Supreme Court cases.:

Today, the Associated Press reports on a televised debate between Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer on this topic. Justice Scalia argued that it is "arrogant" for American judges to mold the Constitution to fit their concept of enlightened world-wide opinion. But Justice Breyer was breathtakingly candid about the role that he thinks foreign countries should play in dictating American law:

Breyer responded that international opinion can be relevant in determining fundamental freedoms in a more global society.

"U.S. law is not handed down from on high even at the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. "The law emerges from a conversation with judges, lawyers, professors and law students. ... It's what I call opening your eyes as to what's going on elsewhere."

I'm not sure I would have believed that if I hadn't read it: "The law emerges from a conversation with judges, lawyers, professors and law students." No mention of the language of the Constitution; no mention of statutes enacted by Congress or the state legislatures; no mention of American customs, traditions, or popular opinion. Do you think this an extreme view? It is, of course, but the Associated Press doesn't think so. Its article calls Scalia a "conservative" justice, but does not label Breyer. His view is, from the AP's perspective, the mainstream one.

This not just "arrogant", "breathtakingly candid" and "extreme", it's a declaration of the rule of lawyers, not the rule of law; and it's a slap in the face for every immigrant there ever was. Why do you think we came? To get away from "what's going on elsewhere." To get away from what passes as "enlightened" opinion in all those benighted countries. To get away from states where they think government is there to rule, not to serve the people.

And I thought I was safe.