[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?