The New Age Supreme Court

Human Events Online ^ | 3-4-2005 | David Limbaugh

[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."

;-)

[Imaverygooddriver]

"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.

[BigEdLB]

"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

[maestro]

.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'

[EagleUSA]

*** 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".

[Joe 6-pack]

"*** 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....

[BMC1]

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.

[TalBlack]

'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?

[Founding Father]

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

[Joe 6-pack]

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....

[Pendragon_6]

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.

;-)

[Little_shoe]

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..

[Joe 6-pack]

"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.

[Little_shoe]

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.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

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.

[Joe 6-pack]

"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?

[freekitty]

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

[LostInBayport]

<< 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.

[combat_boots]

"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.