Ginsburg speaks out for interpreting U.S. law based on the laws of other countries

I really don’t understand how judges get selected or elected when they believe in something as dangerous as interpreting U.S. law by considering foreign law. While I am sure that there are some foreign laws that some people in the U.S. would like to see here, if this gets accepted for general use in the U.S. how do you prevent this from abuse?

The basis of our government is that we are a nation of laws and not subject to the whimsy of man. This was to prevent capricious abuse by kings and other hereditary rulers from mandating our lives based on their own wants and beliefs. But what happens if our judges get to use foreign law as a “…store of knowledge relevant to the solution of trying question.”? This is just another means of trying to make our constitution and laws bend to enactment from the bench rather than the elective representatives of the people.

While these, usually liberal, interpreters of the law maybe very happy with the results as long as they are in power, how will they feel if this becomes the basis for interpreting U.S. law based on the muslim law of Sharia or some other repressive countries of the world?

I am not really surprised that this has riled some of the crazies to target those justices who represent this view, though I do not support such actions. How can such a view that skews our laws not stir the passions of Americans? I hope that this becomes an issue in the elections of all U.S. elected officers over the coming years. We face enough enemies to our way of life without creating our own.