European justice rules top U.S. court

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 3/3/5 | Debra J. Saunders

[SmithL]

SO NOW THE U.S. Supreme Court is writing decisions based on what Our Betters in Europe think is best. That's what the Big Bench did on Tuesday, when it issued a 5-4 decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, overturning the death penalty for crimes committed by minors.

Let me stipulate. The outcome -- an end to executions of those who committed crimes as minors -- isn't what bothers me here. There is an argument to be made that, as per the Eighth Amendment, it is "cruel and unusual" to execute those convicted of crimes committed when they were minors. Minors, as Kennedy put it, are "categorically less culpable than the average criminal."

But the court didn't limit its guidance to the U.S. Constitution. Kennedy wrote that the court can and should consider "the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty," including opposition among "leading members of the Western European community."

Be afraid, America. Be very afraid.

[SmithL]

Debra nails it.

[RexBeach]

I don't there are many people in America who realize the implications of what the court did earlier this week.

Using foreign opinion and or law to render US law, willy-nilly, is not only dangerous it is seditious.

God help us.

[taxcontrol]

Wait a minute, this is a San Francisco newspaper?

[Balding_Eagle]

Be afraid, America. Be very afraid.

That should read: Be ANGRY, America. Be very ANGRY.

[Bahbah]

this is a San Francisco newspaper?

Debra Saunders is the token conservative. Fortunately, she is a very good one.

[cvq3842]

I only got to read the snippet, but I agree: the point is not the decision itself as much as HOW the decision is made.

I have to read Mark Levin's book, Men In Black, about the judiciary. He's really great on his WABC radio show also. He has suggested term limits for judges, but that seems to almost codify rather than fight the trend of judges actiung as "super-legislatures." He has also suggested limiting the jurisdiction of judges (already "Constitutional," since it is the congress which CREATES the lower courts and the jurisdiction in the first place, ass I understand it), or an amendment allowing a Supreme Court decision to be overturned by a two-thirds majority of each house. I like these better, since it seems they would somehow preserve the "moral authority" (to the extent it's there) of the Court rather than making them just another legislature, like they are now. I guess the point is to do SOMETHING.

[SmithL]

The Chronicle has a few voices of reason: Debra Saunders, Jennifer Nelson, and Cinnamon Stillwell.

[Balding_Eagle]

A very wise man recently said (paraphrasing here)

"Our court system needs a complete overhaul, and the SCOTUS will be very helpful in getting this moving"

Mark Levin

He was refering to these sorts of rulings.

[cvq3842]

ass = as

Sorry, I made an "as" of myself by not proofreading - spell check does not work if the typo is also a word!

:)

[marlon]

Yes but Debra Saunders is their one token conservative. She is very good though. What really cracks me up is that the lefties are constantly running around saying that the S Court is so conservative that we just can't let another conservative on their because the court would be so out of balance.

Oh how I wish that were true but alas nothing could be further from the truth. There are only 3 conservatives on the bench, Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas. Period, end of story! The lefties know this all to well but they are able to disguise the truth by pointing out how many of the justices were appointed by Republicans. Only regrets I have about RR and GHW Bush are that they were dupped. But at least we can thank them for Scalia and Thomas, imagine what it would be like without them?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

It's not us who should be afraid.

One of these days, these fleas will bite just hard enough to waken Gulliver.

I sense his sleep is becoming ever more troubled.

[FlipWilson]

"I don't there are many people in America who realize the implications of what the court did earlier this week.

Using foreign opinion and or law to render US law, willy-nilly, is not only dangerous it is seditious."

No, its the best thing that has happened in a long time. Hear me out. The Supreme Court has brought judicial activism to the fore in a high profile case. It was harder to bring public attention to this when the Circuit Courts were doing it, but now, the Supreme Court has stepped into it. This, in turn, brings the judicial nominee issue to the forefront and makes clear its implications.

The Supreme Court has finally gone too far and has negatively impacted its own legitimacy. As Mark Levin argues, it is time to make the Judicial Branch a co-equal branch of government again. We have given the Judicial Branch its power and we can take it away. Without the Execuitve Branch, what power does the Judicial Branch have? It can't enforce its rulings or even make us follow them.

Now, normally, if the President tried to tell the Supreme Court or any other court to screw off on its rulings, i.e. enforce the rulings itself, Congress and the People would call for the President to be impeached. Afterall, nobody is above the law!! The Courts are the Law!!!

But what has changed is that the rulings have gotten more and more anti-democratic and authoritarian. What system of government do we really practice? Republican Democracy. . .HA!!!!! We are all subject to the new Kings and Nobility that are the Federal Courts. Everyday, more and more of the people feel the impact of some whacked out ruling on a case brought be the ACLU or some other organization.

The bottom line, rulings like this raise the public against the Court. When the voters get enraged, so does Congress which in turn empowers the Executive to stand against the Courts.

[bubman]

I agree with the arguement that minors should not be put to death by the state simply from the principle that they are not adults and have no legal responsability under capital punishment statutes (IMHO)However, this is a side issue. What troubles me and no doubt to most on this board is that the scotus has done an end-run around the constitution and has used int'l court opinions to validate their arguements. If the SCOTUS rationale to apply some int'l opinions to advance their arguements and use as well some states positions against death penalty for minors (most states are in favour!) One must conclude that sentimentality and activism on the highest judiciary prevailed. Why didn't the SCOTUS use the same rationale to counter Roe v Wade? Most states at the time were against it!

It is time to impeach Activist Judges. A sentimental, liberal judiciary has no place in the setting of laws that go counter to the prevailing cultural reality of the nation. Alexander Hamilton would surely be shocked at what has become of a Judiciary he deemed not a threat to the nation.

[mortal19440]

Didn't Kennedy or one of the other Supremes use International precedent in the ruling on the Texas Gay privacy issue?

[Poodlebrain]

"Minors, as Kennedy put it, are 'categorically less culpable than the average criminal.'"

Okay, suppose Texas changes its legal definition of "minor" to those under the age of thirteen. Does that suddenly make teens more "culpable" and re-open the door to the death penalty for those thirteen and above in Texas?

Seriously, our Constitution provides the framework for our governments to create the laws that reflect contemporary moral standards for issues such as capital punishment. The Founders presumed that the elected representatives would enact laws that reflect the will of those being governed as well as revoke those laws that offend the electorate. When the Supreme Court takes it upon itself to rule some acts or actions as Constitutionally protected or prevented, the Supreme Court in effect prevents future lawmakers from applying contemporary standards to those acts or actions. The only applicable moral standards are those in place when the Supreme Court made its decision.

It is ironic that the authors of opinions citing contemporary standards as the basis for their decisions are preventing the evolution of the very standards they used as justification for imposing their will.

[CivilWarguy]

Bizarre--a court declaring there is a "national consensus" on an issue, when there isn't even a consensus on the very court that makes that declaration. A divided court declaring a "consensus" is declaration that contradicts itself.

[wildbill]

Isn't this the second controversial case where justices cited European laws and values in their 5-4 decision?