Our law schools can teach international law to their students. Our lawyers can practice international law for fun or profit (the American Bar Association announced Tuesday an international law forum in London later this month). We can pledge allegiance to the Geneva Conventions. But now an expertise in international law evidently makes a person “unconfirmable” even to our lower federal courts.
The bar has been raised for judicial nominees to the federal bench; they cannot be activist, ethnic, or now it seems, well versed in all areas of law. A member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the body responsible for reviewing and first approving appointees to the federal bench has decided that being an “expert” in international law makes you “uncofirmable.” Why this stance?
Are we so isolationist as a nation, that now even knowing about international law makes you subversive? Do we dislike the “progressive” world so much that we refuse to support judges who attempt to make connections with their judicial counterparts around the world? What is going to become of a nation that refuses to recognize that even the practice of law is being globalized?