Yes, because the rest of the world lags behind us in its understanding of freedom.

"He said that he looked instead to India, South Africa and New Zealand."

Yeah, that's nice. The first two places, India and South Africa, are long associated with brutal caste, tribal, ethnic, and religious conflicts. India, for one, gave us the ultrasound abortion industry and South Africa turned "necklacing" into performance art.

As for New Zealand (pop. 4.5m), it's at the edge of the earth. Aside from the fact that it has nice scenery, and the Lord of the Rings movies were filmed there, who gives two hoots in Hades about it?

The only thing Justice Kirby has established is that idiocy is longer a barrier in Australia to a lucrative legal career.

Actually, there is a certain point to what those others have to say. Keep in mind that the original Constitution overlooked slavery, and that the vaunted "separation of powers" has not worked out as intended. We don't need to get into other issues (such as voting rights for women) that reflect long-term changes in the social order.

The real issue, as MK noted, is that in the US there has been a growing disparity between what the Constitution has to say, and what elitist justices claim it says. Worse, in the last couple of years we have seen public referenda (same-gender marriage in California, elimination of discrimination and preferences in Michigan) overturned by federal judges; those referenda were intended by the People to restore society to what it has been, not radical departures. Thus, our Constitution, as interpreted, is against its own People.

Likewise on the issue of abortion. The court-imposed regime, purportedly based on the Constitution, has become one of the most radically abortion-permissive in the world. European nations that permit abortion generally do so for a limited time period, with only limited exceptions thereafter, without court intevention. Meanwhile, the explicit right of religious freedom is disregarded, as if the Consitution did not exist, even as some groups demand a right to carry concealed firearms on campuses (It's our constitutional right!). No wonder others laugh at us.

In those nations with more leftist constitutions, it is a reflection of the more leftist underlying societies there. Thus, their constitutions, and judicial interpretations, are more aligned with their People. There, it is not the case that a radical judicial agenda is being imposed on a nation with its Constitution designed for squirrel-hunters and plantation owners.

In the US, convoluted and irrational legal opinions are needed, and "facts" by strange sociologists are adduced, when judicial power is used to subvert society. Thus, it is no surprise that judges in other nations have learned to ignore US legal opinions. Subversion is not necessary when the laws are aligned with society's own value system, whether it is of the left or the right.

I don't care. If other countries want to ignore our constitution, that's their right. It was written by and for "We the People of the United States of America." If I were Australian, I might be a little annoyed if my judges WERE looking to the US Constitution for their answers. And I would definitely be more than a little worried about the judges looking to India and South Africa for answers...

I'm much more worried that Justice Ginsberg also seems to think she shouldn't look to the US Constitution, since that's kind of, you know, her job.

Does anyone edit this blog? The title should read "Get Your Own Damned Constitution."

Mr. Krikorian:

I'm impressed you replied. The NRO filter is silly, but it is what it is. I think the reference to Mr. Buckley was a bit obscure; next time I'd err on the side of proper English usage.

George W Bush didn't give a hoot about it, either. Unfortunately, Barack Obama often doesn't, too.