Supreme blundering penumbras and emanations
For insight into the terrible death penalty decision handed down by the Supremes yesterday, please read the respected professor Orin Kerr's remarks at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Here's an excerpt from Justice Scalia's powerful dissent:
"The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent."
Regardless of where you stand on the death penalty, this decision is setting dangerous precedent for future Supreme Court decisions. Unable to find justification in American jurisprudence for the unsconstitutionality of the death penalty for minors, the court has now cited "foreign courts" in furthering its agenda. Let's just think about what this really means. It means, quite literally, that French society has just played a role in our constitutional process. This is not just a slippery slope, it's a sheer drop from the cliff.
Here's an excerpt from Justice Scalia's powerful dissent:
"The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent."
Regardless of where you stand on the death penalty, this decision is setting dangerous precedent for future Supreme Court decisions. Unable to find justification in American jurisprudence for the unsconstitutionality of the death penalty for minors, the court has now cited "foreign courts" in furthering its agenda. Let's just think about what this really means. It means, quite literally, that French society has just played a role in our constitutional process. This is not just a slippery slope, it's a sheer drop from the cliff.
posted by Wonderdog | 10:10 AM | Permalink
|
6 comments
6 Comments:
I, for one, plan to ask my representatives to look into impeaching Justice Kennedy. Then I'm going to ask my reps down in Richmond to take away the so-called rights of anyone under the age of 18 (driving, marrying, working, abortion) citing the Supreme Court's ruling.
Kennedy is living up to his name. Both he and O'Connor have been veering left for some years now.
What's really scary is how this case can now be cited in future cases to justify wacky decisions of the court. They're attempting to lay a foundation of precedent predicated on the flimsiest of rationalizations (i.e. foreign societies) to arbitrarily manipulate the law to fit their whims.
I suggest we give this group of five some crowns to go with their robes to make the monarchy complete.
CIV, save the impeachment talk. Having an opinion that differs with your own is not an impeachable offense for a Supreme Court Justice.
Hey, Wonderdog, since our jurisprudence comes directly from England in the first place, with a little French thrown in down in Louisiana, I don't think we can say that our laws are free from "Foreign Influence".
I have mixed feelings about the decision. The court said that it was cruel and unusual to execute people for crimes that they committed while minors. That is a bright line that I frankly don't have a lot of problem with and it has an effect on, what, less than 80 criminals? It is largely a ban that effects only the Southern states of the US, with a few others thrown in. I'm not that much in a tizzy over it.
On the other hand, my youngest won't be 18 until October, so I'm watching my back.
Stewdog, it's not the impact of the decision on the death penalty itself that bothers me so much. I'm not really frothing at the mouth to execute people. What's dangerous and irreprehensible, however, is the incredible rationale this court used in reaching its decision and the impact that rationale will have on future cases. If our Supreme Court is going to start basing its decisions on how foreign countries think than we can kiss our Constitution goodbye.
The majority decision actually begins its opinion by citing the United Nations:
"Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, entered into force Sept. 2, 1990, which every country in the world has ratified save for the United States and Somalia, contains an express prohibition on capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles under 18."
Do you want our Supreme Court decisions to be based on U.N. resolutions? Too late, it just happened.
If we can't find justification for making something unconstitutional, we have a process for making it so. It's called the amendment process. How about we let the American people decide what our constitution says rather than 5 judges and the U.N.?
I don't care if the Supreme Court disagrees with me, but I certainly care when they start basing decisions on:
It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penaltyand "national consensus" and "standards of decency" instead of the U.S. Constitution!
What gives the Supreme Court the right to base important decisions on popularity polls -- and foreign ones, to boot?!?!
A good decision with a bad foundation is fraught with peril.
Watch them cite this case to free our local sniper boy, Malvo, when he hits 21 because he was just a kid when he shot all those poeple. Life without parole is cruel and unusual punishment, according to a recent poll taken in Hollywood and Brussels. Let him go!
(If you haven't lived in fear for months of a sniper shooting at you and your friends and family, then I don't want to hear any sympathy for Malvo, thanks.)
I have no sympathy for Malvo.
I had my turn of fear both with Richard Ramirez in 1985 and spending any time with Wonderdog.
The 8th amendment is always going to be open for interpretation. Just what does "Cruel and Unusual" mean. It is evolving. I agree that they could have reached their decision without going across the border.
Post a Comment
<< Home