Posted on 03/01/2005 7:21:16 AM PST by Next_Time_NJ
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.
The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.
The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel.
This report will be updated as details become available.
Yes I do.
I apologize to Sandra Day O'Connor. She was on the right side...though losing side, thanks to that rat Souder. That's what happens when a Republican president (Bush 41) picks a justice approved of by the Democrat liberals. There is a lesson here for #43.
Oh really? Justice Scalia is fond of citing British sources in his decisions--Blackstone, Coke, etc. You want to start with him?
Didn't think so.
So this means John Lee Malvo will never see death for his part in the DC Sniper killings????
If public hangings were brought back, this would not be the case.
Can the states be sued for previous violations?
Yep. That point was just made by one of the info-babes on Fox.
The decision is correct, the age chosen is wrong.
Where? Distinctions regarding minors are not in my copy.
In fact, a reading of the 14th Amendment would equate minors to adults as "citizens" with a right to equal protection under the law. Equal protection might then also imply equal responsibility.
That's what "shall not be infringed" was meant prevent.
Don't even joke about shit like that. Very not wise.
They have set temselves apart from the rest of us. They truly see themselves as deities on Mount Olympus. It is their personal mores that is the prime directive, not the mores of the common man at large or the Constitution of the United States.
They keep grabbing executive, Congressional, and State powers and nobody has the wherewithal to do a damn thing about it.
I think that might be because that is when they generally graduate from high school and start getting out on their own in life.
No, it does. Kids under 18 have some rights, just not the same rights as adults. Similarly, they must be judged according to laws and the consequences of their actions, but not the same laws as adults. A murder is a horrible crime when committed by a 16 year old as by a 25 year old. But age is a mitigating factor, the same as premeditation and mental state. That's why the judicial system recognizes several degrees of murder and manslaughter--every situation has different rules.
"But whether or not I agree, the question is whether the justices really have the authority to define "cruel" this way, usurping state prerogatives."
They have the authority because they are granted the authority by the covalent branches of government.
The only way for Congress or the President, or the States for that matter, to establish that the Supremes do NOT have that authority would be to simply defy them, and then for the covalent branches of government to stand with the defiant one.
That has not happened since Lincoln.
Which means that the idea that the three branches of government are EQUAL in authority is just an opinion.
The actual fact of the matter is that the Judiciary is the supreme branch of government, because it is the only branch that cannot be overturned by the other two, but it can overturn any act of any other branch of government without appeal.
Do they have the "authority"?
Obviously they do. The President, Congress and the States obey them, don't they?
Therefore, they have the authority.
Since there is no practical way around a Supreme Court decision, the only way to assert that the Court lacked the AUTHORITY would be by stating so and IGNORING the Court.
Note: Amending the Constitution to get around a problem is NOT saying that the Court lacks the authority. Rather the opposite. It says that the Court HAS the authority, and that the Constitution itself needs to be changed to address the issue the Court has raised.
The only way to demonstrate that the Supreme Court is limited in authority is for the other branches of government to explicitly and publicly defy a Supreme Court decision, asserting on their own that the Supreme Court lacks the authority to render such a decision.
It will not work if just the Executive does this: Congress will override him. It will not work if Congress does it: the Executive will investigate and prosecute. What is required is an open confrontation between the Executive and Legislative Branches with the Judiciary, specifically by the direct rejection and defiance of a Supreme Court order, on the explicit publicly stated grounds that the Supreme Court has abused its power and does not in fact have the Constitutional authority to make a certain decision. President Jackson did this, for a bad cause. President Lincoln did it pretty routinely in a good one.
But no President since has done so.
And if none dares to, and no Congress will go along, then you have your full answer: the Supreme Court absolutely has the authority to render such decisions, and is the senior branch of government.
And after the seperation of church and state.
Im shocked myself. I never thought i would agree with the Lib side of the court, but this is a very touchy subject for me. I am not sure if they ever actually killed someone under 18 before, but i am on the side of the justices today...
Anyway, it doesnt matter.. agree with it or not.. its the law now.. and nothing will change that unless Bush appoints new justices to overturn it.
Might as well open your window and scream.. thats all you can do at this point.
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.