Twenty-seven members of the SC legislature are concerned that without a law in place, judges will get adventuresome:
"'It would simplify things to say, "We’re in a South Carolina court, and let’s use South Carolina law." It’s meant to help our judges not to be pushed and pressured and prodded to enforce other countries’ laws,' [Rep. Wendy] Nanney [R-Greenville] said."
South Carolina ranks last in the nation in number of judges per capita, and the 5,011 cases each circuit judge carries means defendants can languish in jail for a year or more before coming to trial. It hardly seems they have time to apply state law, much less the child custody laws of Myanmar, if such there be.
"'It would simplify things to say, "We’re in a South Carolina court, and let’s use South Carolina law." It’s meant to help our judges not to be pushed and pressured and prodded to enforce other countries’ laws,' [Rep. Wendy] Nanney [R-Greenville] said."
South Carolina ranks last in the nation in number of judges per capita, and the 5,011 cases each circuit judge carries means defendants can languish in jail for a year or more before coming to trial. It hardly seems they have time to apply state law, much less the child custody laws of Myanmar, if such there be.
Is there any knee-jerk bill that Wendy Nanney won't sign onto?
ReplyDeleteThis is a needed tool to help eliminate the possibility of having a dual legal system in South Carolina. What happens is if a dual system is allowed is the other system becomes subversive. Those who are not familar with this tactic naturally don't see the danger.
ReplyDeleteHi there, Anon- There is a well-developed body of law, general known under the heading Conflicts of Law, that deals with resolving issues between two states. Here's a link to a recent conference that dealt with some newly emerging conflicts, for example: http://volokh.com/2012/02/09/resolving-conflict-legal-norms-between-us-and-foreign-courts-uva-symposium/. Many common conflicts of law- as in family law- are also addressed by federal law and treaties under Article 6 of the US Constitution. A simple explanation of conflicts of law is in this Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_laws. Another, simpler, explanation might be that under the Nanney bill SC courts wouldn't be able to look to the English common law that is the basis of much case law in South Carolina. Those who are not familiar with this actual, existing way of sorting out conflicts of law naturally may think there is a problem where there isn't.
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting info and good links. I would also posit that some individuals may simply be trying to create a problem where there isn't one in order to gain political points.
Delete