Skip to comments.DC vs. Heller Ruling to be Issued June 26
Posted on 06/25/2008 7:33:33 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
The DC gun ban case ruling will be issued tomorrow, Thursday, June 26. Stay tuned!
Regardless of whether you agree with the Louisiana law or not, the text of the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel or unusual punishment, not harsh or drastic punishment. It says nothing about proportionality of punishment, and certainly does not prevent capital punishment for rape of any sort. Crimes like robbery, burglary, and, yes, rape were capital crimes in most, if not all, of the country when the Eighth Amendment was drafted and ratified, and for many decades afterwards.
Now, the Supreme Court has, since then, imposed its own values onto the text of the Eighth Amendment to make it mean something it doesn’t, but that’s no more legitimate than any other activist, “living constitutionalist” decision.
If any value judgment is to be made as to what crimes warrant death in Louisiana, it is to be made by the Louisiana legislature, not by the US Supreme Court.
You’re not Old - You’re BOLD.
Semper Fi to you as well, sir. And God bless you.
I'm a junkie and I need help...
...picking up all the brass and wheelweights I can find. 8^)
Instead of finding a cure, maybe we should just learn to live with our disease... ;-)
Ping for later reading
Your opinion, which you are entitled to. The Court however is supposed to base their rulings on the law and most especially upon the Constitution. The Court said, and you seem to feel as well, that the punishment is disproportionate. But the Constitution's 8th amendment doesn't ban disproportionate punishment, only cruel and unusual punishment. What is "disproportionate" is a matter for legislatures, not Justices, to determine. As far as "unusual" goes, the only reason no one has been executed in over 40 years for a crime not involving a dead victim, is that the Court itself banned the death penalty for rape back in 1977. Even before that it wasn't used often, but often enough not to be unusual. It sure as heck isn't cruel. The way execution are conducted today, it's the same sort of method millions use to put down their cherished animal companions and pets to *prevent* a really horrible death, such as by kidney failure, distemper, etc. The Court has inserted its own opinions as though they were the legislative representatives of the people.
If Kennedy writes the Majority opinon, it will be 4-5 against against overturning the DC laws, and Thomas or Scalia might write the dissenting opinion. It might still be found to be an individual right, but it will be declared subject to "reasonable" regulations, and the DC laws termed "reasonable".
But by legislators, not by unelected Judges. Otherwise it's the rule of Judges, not the rule of law.
They could rule that way, say by upholding the handgun ban.
It is also the majority opinion of this court that representative government bodies in the United States do have the ability to control the ammunition that would be used in guns owned by the citizens of the United States.
Ammunition is not at issue in this case, so they are unlikely to mention it. But it would follow from the first posited ruling, if they could ban dangerous arms, they could ban dangerous ammunition.
Remember Bush came out against Heller, and most of the SC is left of him.
Stock up, and remember that after January you will have a very short time to buy anything for what may be coming.
Probably about the same kind of attention the Bonus Marchers got.
See also Bonus Army
I agree with your observations. Thanks for the response.
But that's NOT in the Constitution. It's a value judgment, as such making it is among the powers reserved to the states by the 10th amendment.
Now, the taking of a life deserves the response that society as a whole is willing to accept, not what you personally think should happen.
Right, and the Supreme Court is not "society as a whole". Neither is a legislature, but under our system it's their job and their power to represent society as a whole.
Actually one of the DC laws in the Supreme Court's formulation of The Question, does concern bearing arms. It bans bearing loaded long arms, even in one's own home, from one room to another.
And do you believe the death sentence was given without emotion involved?
Would a jury be willing to sentence someone to death for jaywalking? I know that it's not uncommon for the state to play various games with what juries are and are not allowed to hear, and that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Nonetheless, if the state refrains from gaming the jury, I would trust that jury's judgment far more than Justice Ginsburg's.
His justice department did, but then his Vice President, in Mr. Cheney's capacity as President of the Senate, came out for Heller by signing up for the Amici brief supporting Heller. I don't think "W" himself has made a statement one way or other. If you have a link to one, I'd appreciate it. But even the solicitor general did not argue against an individual right, but rather for "reasonable restrictions" based on "compelling state interest".
BTW, McCain also signed onto that "friend of the court" brief in support of Heller, which was written by Stephen Holbrook, well known pro arms rights attorney. B. Hussein did not, nor did he have the stones to sign on to a brief for DC, as 18 sitting Congresscritters, lead by Chaka Fattah did.
Probably not, but so what? The potential for a judge or jury, I prefer a jury, to impose a death penalty for any particular crime is a matter for legislation. That might not be emotionless as we might like, but I don't think Supreme Court Justices have a corner on the dispassion supply either.