Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The New Age Supreme Court
Human Events Online ^ | 3-4-2005 | David Limbaugh

Posted on 03/04/2005 1:54:01 PM PST by Pendragon_6

Five Justices Shred Constitution To Protect Cold-Blooded Killers

The Supreme Court's decision barring execution of murderers who commit their crime before age 18 as cruel and unusual punishment is not only fundamentally flawed, but also deeply troubling -- for more than just a few reasons.

In its 5-4 decision on March 1, the Court decreed that "Juveniles are less mature than adults and, no matter how heinous their crimes, they are not among 'the worst offenders' who deserve to die."

While I certainly respect that opinion, I strongly object to the United States Supreme Court presuming to impose it on our entire society as if it is the final arbiter not just of the law, but our moral standards.

Adding insult to injury, the Court doesn't even deny its staggering presumptuousness. In the words of the ever-disappointing Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, "To implement this framework we have established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of referring to 'the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society' to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual."

;-)


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: davidlimbaugh; juveniles; ropervsimmons; supremecourt; transjudicialism

1 posted on 03/04/2005 1:54:01 PM PST by Pendragon_6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pendragon_6
"Juveniles are less mature than adults and, no matter how heinous their crimes, they are not among 'the worst offenders' who deserve to die."

Worst offenders? Some of the most henious crimes ever committed have been done by kids. Hello Columbine. Is there a time limit now for common sense? I know 50 year olds who have less common sense than those who are 6. Look at Bill Clinton, look at John Wayne Gacy, look at Jeffrey Dahmer, look at Hilery Clinton. I`m sorry, but I remember clear as day when I was a kid that killing someone meant the death penalty if not life in prison, and if these kids are so short on common sense, what the hell do you think they are going to be like as adults when they have more freedom? Screw them, fry the little bastards. You can`t figure out basic common sense out by the time you are 14, then we don`t want you floating around at 30 babe.

2 posted on 03/04/2005 2:13:51 PM PST by Imaverygooddriver (I`m a very good driver and I approve this message.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pendragon_6
"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 Constitu-tion, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent."

-Justice Antonin Scalia

3 posted on 03/04/2005 2:14:07 PM PST by BigEdLB (BigEd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: tollytee
.I am repeating myself from other threads, but I just have to speak out. The SC decides to repeal the death penalty for a 16 yr. old rapist and multiple murderer in the morning session, then upholds the right of a woman to rip the 16 wk. old baby out of her womb, during the afternoon session. This is surreal.

This is 2005.......in the,...'Its all illusion anyway'....mystical Amerika...

/'medical' 'science' 'religion' 'club'

5 posted on 03/04/2005 2:32:43 PM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tollytee

*** THE SC IS OUT OF CONTROL ***
It is now violating the very premises of its existence and purpose. Liberalism has struck, and the liberal justices see nothing wrong with what they are doing. America has a very serious problem to solve, and quickly.

I have already sent emails to Bush, et al, and hope to see some action on this. Of course, the radical socialist left is just having orgasms over the fact that the SC can now be swayed not only by influences outside of our Constitution, our laws and our borders, but by any subjective means, it would appear. This is their path to "liberal heaven".


6 posted on 03/04/2005 2:33:07 PM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
"*** THE SC IS OUT OF CONTROL ***

To the contrary, they are very much in control. It's 9 against 300 million, and so far there's not been so much as a peep from our elected representatives....

7 posted on 03/04/2005 2:39:11 PM PST by Joe 6-pack ("It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pendragon_6
There is another problem with this decision. It appears that Justice John Paul Stevens should have reused himself from this case because he had a predetermined vote on this issue prior to hearing the case.

According to Mark Levin's book Men in Black, Justice Stevens in 2002 in the case of Thompson v. Oklahoma, Stevens referred to international standards for the execution of criminals under sixteen years of age. Pages 21 and 22.
8 posted on 03/04/2005 2:39:53 PM PST by BMC1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pendragon_6

'the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society'

Maturing toward what? Does justice Kennedy have some god-like overview the rest of us lack?


9 posted on 03/04/2005 2:41:51 PM PST by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

Demand your representative begin impeachment proceedings against the "Foreign Law Five." That will get their attention----and ONLY that.


10 posted on 03/04/2005 2:42:17 PM PST by Founding Father (Another pearl of wisdom from my imaginary mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father

It's going to be a letter writing weekend...I can assure you of that. Last week I read Levine's new book cover to cover...within a matter of days, the SC again pulls this *international precedent* garbage. I am infuriated...had this been 1770 some chickens would be getting plucked and a few pails of tar would be warming....


11 posted on 03/04/2005 2:51:27 PM PST by Joe 6-pack ("It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB

Ever notice how many Supreme Court decisions are 5 to 4? The schism mirrors nearly identically in relative numbers dividing America along the two party lines.

;-)

12 posted on 03/04/2005 2:55:16 PM PST by Pendragon_6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack; EagleUSA

The Supreme court has the power to say all they want. However, I would like to see those Nine try to enforce there decisions on our whole society. Should the president disagree or object refuse to force the rulings it would get there panties all in a twist...

Dont you ever know that Judges tend to quote case law (i.e Doe vs Smith) rather than the law legislated by Congress..


13 posted on 03/04/2005 3:04:45 PM PST by Little_shoe ("For Sailor MEN in Battle fair since fighting days of old have earned the right.to the blue and gold)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Little_shoe
"However, I would like to see those Nine try to enforce there decisions on our whole society."

Why should they have to enforce them when nobody dare oppose them? Name someone who has not complied with a SC decision in the last 50 years.

14 posted on 03/04/2005 3:07:57 PM PST by Joe 6-pack ("It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

If no one has opposed them then it seems like the checks and balances in our constitution are breaking down.... When the courts become to powerful it is the responsiblity of the congress and the president to bring them back in line.


15 posted on 03/04/2005 3:13:57 PM PST by Little_shoe ("For Sailor MEN in Battle fair since fighting days of old have earned the right.to the blue and gold)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pendragon_6
If a child knows that they will not receive the death penalty for cold blooded killing, what is to stop them? I've heard many liberals argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent, but I can't see how it wouldn't be. If you kill another person and are completely aware and did it with premeditation, shouldn't you get the death penalty, regardless of age? I think this is too broad of a decision for them to make. Each case should be looked at individually.
16 posted on 03/04/2005 3:14:12 PM PST by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little_shoe
"When the courts become to powerful it is the responsiblity of the congress and the president to bring them back in line."

And how have the president and congress been fulfilling their responsibilities with regards to SCOTUS as of late?

17 posted on 03/04/2005 3:17:27 PM PST by Joe 6-pack ("It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pendragon_6

I believe these Justices are trying to get their agendas thru before GW brings in the hopefully conservative Justices.


18 posted on 03/04/2005 3:45:16 PM PST by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack
<< Justice Kennedy: 'the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society' >>

This quote evokes the Massachusetts SJC decision that 'found' gay marriage within that State's constitution. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall called marriage 'an evolving paradigm'.

Looks like 'evolve' is code for finding justification for a law where none exists.
19 posted on 03/04/2005 3:46:49 PM PST by LostInBayport (One Massachusetts conservative adrift in a sea of liberal lunacy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine

"If a child knows that they will not receive the death penalty for cold blooded killing, what is to stop them?"

Chilling thought that. However, what stops them now? Their respect for adults that is taught so lovingly on "The Simpsons"? Now, we are not to treat juveniles quite so openly, as they might turn, in their immature way, into real monsters, and not just the little 'monsters' we may have thought of them after they misbehave? Remember: this is now the second generation of children educated by child care, and while that is not a problem in itself, still, some of those children have raised themselves rather more than less.


20 posted on 03/04/2005 4:42:42 PM PST by combat_boots (Dug in and not budging an inch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Little_shoe

Dont you ever know that Judges tend to quote case law (i.e Doe vs Smith) rather than the law legislated by Congress..
====
They tend to do that -- but they have been citing things which ARE NOT EVEN AMERICAN upon which they are stating rulings and opinions....this case is JUST ONE in point.


21 posted on 03/04/2005 6:10:03 PM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
For Sure!!!!!!!

Earlier this week, I asked the students in a high school class what remedies there were for their indefenisble conduct - looking, of course, for the "I" word. One of the students offered his solution by reminding me that they were all under 18! 'Nuf said!

22 posted on 03/04/2005 7:54:21 PM PST by LiteKeeper (The Secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
Demand your representative begin impeachment proceedings against the "Foreign Law Five." That will get their attention----and ONLY that.

Don't you think that, since Congress will not make regulations governing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by simple majority vote, as they are empowered to do in Article III, section 2, that it might be a wee bit difficult to find a 2/3 vote for removal of Associate Justices?

Impeachment is unnecessary. Congress can eliminate all of these problems by regulation, passed by simple majority vote and not subject to Presidential veto.

They do not do so because they agree with most of what the Court has done, and would not want it undone.

23 posted on 03/04/2005 8:00:11 PM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
so far there's not been so much as a peep from our elected representatives....

They dread the return of domestic relations issues to their jurisdiction, and will do anything they can to keep these issues before the Court, rather than in Congress where decisions they might make jeopardize the best job any of them ever will have.

24 posted on 03/04/2005 8:03:07 PM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Impeachment, nullification, interposition, and the use of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution all need to be considered.

We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.

I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny. The nebulous references to "growing national consensus" and citations of "international law" are just too much to countenance. What does it take to make 5 of these justices cognizant of the fact that their authority to preside originates in the US CONSTITUTION?

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful. Congress can and should impeach federal judges for blatently unconstitutional rulings that manufacture law.

Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.


25 posted on 03/04/2005 8:19:11 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank
I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny

I hope you are not accusng me.

I merely am pointing out that the People have delegated the power to put a stop to this to the representatives in Congress assembled, and that the People have so far failed to elect representatives who will act at the 51% level, so that exhorting them to take action at the 67% level is mere rhetoric.

26 posted on 03/05/2005 4:14:25 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson