> those four are extremely limited in which cases they can hear.
And the ECHR are extremely limited in which cases they can hear. Thus, we agree that just as scotus doesn't mean that you have a bunch of gun-slingin' Texans passing laws to control the lives of portland Oregon hipsters, we don't have frog-eating French controlling the lives of the Roast Beefs.
The limitation you're referring to is substantive, and the limitation I'm referring to is procedural. They aren't remotely the same thing. The implicit proposal you're referring to gives an unrepresentative international tribunal the power to override democratic process over a whole area of policy.
And the ECHR are extremely limited in which cases they can hear. Thus, we agree that just as scotus doesn't mean that you have a bunch of gun-slingin' Texans passing laws to control the lives of portland Oregon hipsters, we don't have frog-eating French controlling the lives of the Roast Beefs.