It's common for courts around the world to regard the decisions and reasoning of foreign courts as having good persuasive authority, even if they're not technically binding. Naturally, this is even more the case if the law is nearly identical across borders (as through trade agreements).
I don't know whether SCOTUS mentioned other countries, but it basically said that abortion was the legislature's call, just like it is in almost all of the rest of the world.
FWIW, the restriction upheld was significantly less restrictive than almost every European country.
Yes Indeed. That way they'd learn that courts don't make legislation, which you seem to be confused by. Now that Roe v Wade is gone, we can actually legislate on the issue and reduce the polarization in American politics by coming to democratic compromises, rather than be subject to rule by court fiat.
Reversing Roe vs Wade means that individual states can decide on their own. Each states in USA has their elections. This means the decision is way more democractic than being decided by 9 people. SCOTUS didnt ban abortions. You go to Cali for example, you can still abort right to 8mths even if those babies or fetus can survive to adulthood without modern medicine (with modern medicine, fetus as youbg as 4mths can make it). If you feel unpleasant that you can have unprotective sex and kill fetus anyway you like it, you can move to the state that align with your preference. In the past Roe vs Wade basically oppress people who supported pro-life and they can't even move to any states as they are forced to accept and practice fetus killing nationwide. Of course you could argue, they leave country then. Well that also is a bit oppressive as now if you dont like the majority preference in USA you get out...sounds familiar?
I've looked at a tiny number of laws by country and it blew my mind how different the approaches were. A Japanese version seemed to expect various degrees. I have no idea about the culture but I can imagine a Japannees official carefully keeping his mouth shut if he has no relevant degree. Belgium and Iceland were deeply involved with public opinion. Dutch is about boiling the frog slowly.
There will be hacks like that that allow dismissing choices made by other governments quickly but this isnt a bad thing it will make the differences more pronounced. We will love and hate "how things are done here" and learn how things could have been by looking at others.
Dont forget, opinions are dangerous to have in democracy. With each made public (i imagine) you lose something like 0,01% of support. One would best gently discard the other approaches taken.
That they are implemented often with measurable results also prevents making up some idiotic story what you think will happen.
Each country also has a history of law. Its like programming, everything needs to be rewritten and those who rewrite weren't there the last time. It works every time but at some point you should wonder if the right solution is already out there
For civil law, my understanding is that judges are more likely to cite academic legal opinions published in journals rather than other prior cases. It would make sense in that context that it is fine to look at case law in other countries.
(I am a lawyer) courts routinely consider foreign judgments especially in the case of the highest court where they are at the bleeding edge of the law. They are not binding of course.
