One more reason to hate lawyers. The reasoning used by Baldwin is called Sophistry. Set up a reasonable appearance in the form of a strawman, and then pick it apart. The issue is about US courts using international law and/or Sharia law as the BASIS for a decision for which there may or may not be a US legal precedent or specific law. It is not about using those sources to derive or to write a new law.

Baldwin is correct in stating that under Old Testament law there were extreme forms of punishment, including stoning. What he fails to acknowledge is that the New Testament tells us to not use extreme forms of punishment ("Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone"). Moreover, we use history not just to establish our laws but to also determine what not to do. Baldwin does not acknowledge that either. Moreover, it is up to the LEGISLATIVE branch to consider world history, concepts of other nations/religions, etc when THEY WRITE the laws. It is NOT the prerogative of the judiciary to WRITE new laws by basing decisions on anything other than existing US laws and US legal precedents.

And even Mr Baldwin should well know by now if any court ever has the temerity to quote the Bible as the basis for one of its decisions, the ACLU (or one of their flock) will use that as a basis for appeal because of their interpretation of separation of church and state.