If it's all a matter of "evolving standards," then why pretend to abide by a written document at all?
Posted on 06/27/2008 5:26:20 AM PDT by Zakeet
In the United States today we no longer enjoy the rule of law but instead the rule of lawyers — robed lawyers with the exalted title "justice" — but still unelected lawyers enacting their own policy preferences.
Before their commonsense decision in the Second Amendment case, a different complement of justices (Justice Anthony Kennedy siding with the liberals) demonstrated what a flimsy hold the words of the Constitution have on our jurisprudence. In fact, when you consider that the court is pretty well divided between four liberals and four conservatives with Justice Kennedy swinging from one side to another as the spirit moves him, we now enjoy a Republic of Kennedy. All this fuss and bother about the presidential race is misplaced. The most powerful man in the land is someone most Americans couldn't pick out of a lineup.
In Louisiana v. Kennedy, the majority held unconstitutional a statute that permitted the death penalty for rape of a child under the age of 12. In the case at bar, the child was an 8-year-old girl who was brutally raped by her stepfather.
[Snip -- warning: graphic medical testimony was excluded here]
Explaining why the statute violated the constitutional prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishment, Justice Kennedy declared that, "Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person, and the punishment of criminals must conform to that rule." Will someone please ask Justice Kennedy and his liberal fellows this question: If it's all a matter of "evolving standards," then why pretend to abide by a written document at all? And whose evolving standards?
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
If it's all a matter of "evolving standards," then why pretend to abide by a written document at all?
Just a reminder to the "conservatives" here who will be sitting on their hands or voting Third Party this fall. Elections matter; now more than ever.
FOUR SCOTUS judges voted AGAINST our Constitutional rights!!! Remember THAT come November, too.
I'm confident McCain won't give us another Ginsberg, Breyer or Kennedy, and I'm equally as confident that Obama WILL!
Hmmmm, probably William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, and Louis Farrahkan.
Just wait for the Obama-appointed court.
Another nail in the coffin of the American government. Our government (not because of Bush, but because of the people we elect and the ones they appoint) is irreparably broken. The SCOTUS was intended to be an impartial body that ruled on cases as they pertain to the Constitution. Instead, “Justices” are appointed to the SCOTUS on the basis of their political leanings, NOT their background and experience in law.
This government doesn’t work anymore.
The 14th amendment states (in part): ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...
In both cases, the specific language in the amendments postulates the appropriateness of the death penalty. It cannot be that the framers or "amenders" thought the death penalty was cruel and unusual since they specifically accounted for its use.
The modern "enlightened" have grabbed the reigns of power and are determined to "rule" over a free People whether the People like it or not.
I fully believe that it’s only a matter of time before some state finally gets fed up with the Supremes and just says “No”. What power do the supremes actually have once enough citizens simply say that they no longer are going to go by the rulings? Years ago, I’d have thought this was preposterous. No longer. Once Obama gets into office (and he will, given McCain’s complete idiocy)...we’re going to get rulings that I - for one - will simply not obey. My (and many others, I believe) will say to the supremes, “You and what army?” And our army won’t respond either - given the libs complete disrespect for our military.
Article/thread BUMP!
From her article:
"Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person, and the punishment of criminals must conform to that rule." Will someone please ask Justice Kennedy and his liberal fellows this question: If it's all a matter of "evolving standards," then why pretend to abide by a written document at all? And whose evolving standards?
I have a more basic question. What the hell does Kennedy even mean by, "Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person, and the punishment of criminals must conform to that rule?" This is intellectual drivel of the worst sort, because it pretends to a lofty superiority that in no way exists in the thoughts expressed.
To what "rule" is Kennedy referring? What do "standards of decency," evolving or otherwise, have to do with what the court was asked to decide?
I can just hear Kennedy sniffing in a patronizing way as he wrote that drivel (or signed off on what one of his clerks wrote), not even recognizing the sheer intellectual emptiness of it.
You do understand that our government worked in this instance?
The left has spent nearly 100 years to get this moment and they failed. In spite of all the momentum generated by Wilson, FDR and Clinton, we still won.
We should be good for another 100 years until the next constitutional crisis.
Yes my FRiends. The Constitution is nothing more than an old piece of paper to the government these days. That goes for all facets of government.
I understand that our government BARELY worked in this instance. I also understand that there is a lot of internet chatter suggesting that Kennedy was ready to vote to support the gun ban until certain political "higher-ups" got to him and convinced him to vote against the ban. I understand that virtually all of the SC Justices were appointed on the basis of their political leanings. I understand that there should NEVER have been a question about gun ownership or anything else related to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights if political opinion were not allowed to influence the decisions of the SCOTUS. That's also why I understand that this government is irreparably broken.
If you think that we won't have another Constitutional crisis for another 100 years, you need to come up for air more often. While we are paying exorbitant prices for gas that affect virtually every aspect of our lives, tolerating a mortgage meltdown that has affected millions of homeowners, our president has devoted his energy towards the US Institute of Peace, the Senate has worried about drug use and bad referreeing in professional sports, the House is listening to Dopey Dennis Kucinch introduce another useless bill of impeachment against Bush, et al and, finally, the majority of the SCOTUS delivered an opinion that the murdering terrorists in Guantanamo deserved to have Constitutional rights granted to them so that a liberal judicial system can free them and give them another opportunity to do what they failed to do the first time - murder millions of Americans.
If you don't see a problem there, then I guess you're 100% happy and believe that the government should do more of the things it is not doing FOR America. For me, I want the government to focus on issues involving Americans as defined in the Constitution. If they can't do that, then adjourn the Congress and send these people home to get real jobs and stop fittering their time away on our dime.
You don’t seem to be familiar with our history. It’s always been this way.
Most Americans didn’t want to be independent from England.
The Articles of Confederation barely worked.
The current Constitution was barely approved.
We barely survived fights over how the government should work during Adams Presidency; the 2nd President.
We barely survived the 1812 War.
We barely stayed together in the Civil War.
I could go on ad nauseum but I feel your pain. ;)
You make a good point that serious crises happen with frightening regularity, but if the time ever comes when we fail to respond with the courage and energy that such occassions require, we will truly be at an end.
I think back to the crisis which was unfolding in 2000 as the Democrats in Florida attempted to steal the election by counting ballots until they got the total they wanted. Their attempt to move the process behind closed doors was energetically opposed by patriots whose names we will never know. I am thankful to them this week for the Heller decision.
Some of our national crises have resolved themselves while people took a deep breath and waited for calmer minds to address the issues. Another erupted into a bloodbath costing half a million lives.
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition".
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.