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.
I'm sure they just didn't have the maturity to understand what they were doing. Right.
Really, they're just a bunch of misunderstood kids. Right?
All rhetorical and I'm being sarcastic, JIC.
Your argument can be summed up in two words, Judicial Supremacy. You're a central power kind of guy.
Are you a lawyer and/or a historian?
What do you think of my idea of a law or constitutional amendment removing lifetime tenure for federal judges?
Scalia cites to English common law extant as of the date the US declared its independence, because that common law was carried forward by the new American nation. In a word, it became American common law.
Gee, can't we just wait until they're over 18, then execute 'em? ;')
...Why don't you leave it up to circumstances and a jury?...
Exactly. I.E. A kid who shoots his cruel abusive father in self defense vs a gangbanger who kills someone just for the hell of it. Big difference. The Supreme Court has imposed a broad brush stroke here. It is to broad.
Removing the death penalty for heinous crimes commited by teens also means that the taxpayer is now forced to take care of them to the tune of 30+K a year for the rest of their lives, or, until they are released.
I also agree with the folks here who believe the Supreme Court was never given the power under the constitution to make this decision.
Those who agree that the Court made the right decision must also agree that the soldier in the field has no right to take the life of any terrorist under the age of eighteen from this so called "moral" point of view. Should the soldier ask that terrorist for his I.D. before shooting him? Wouldn't that be lovely.
Not only that, but why should we have to feed and house Bubba and his harem?
Yours can be summed up as, goofy nonsense.
You're a central power kind of guy.
LOL, that's the first time I've ever been accused of that particular thing! LOL
This was the dumbest, stupidist most idiotic ruling I've ever seen come out of the Supreme Court today.
What this ruling does is give juveniles catre blance to play *** and go after those whose ideas they don't like.
The founding fathers made it very clear they didn't want foreign law dictating how the law would be applied. They made it clear that the Constitution, not foerin law was going to be the Supreme law of the land yet some dumba**es have chosen to impose foreign law on the rest of us.
This is the dumbest stupidist thing I've ever seen in my life from this sorry lazy miserable good for nothing pieces of human debris in black robe. especially this Kennedy judge. This no good S.O.B. needs to be thrown off the bunch.
America deserves better than this. Regards.
Because most people simply are not killers.
bunch=bench foerin=foreign
That's exactly right. He believes the text today should mean what it meant when it was written. Old English law is the source of most important words and phrases in our Constitution, so that's the place Scalia looks when he wants to know what the words in the Constitution are supposed to mean.
The principle is the right not to be killed unless you are threatening another life.
Self-defense of the individual, inalienable right not to be killed of the people in cooperation as a State is the consistency of principle behind the death penalty.
Hi Sandy, long time no see.
You mean you disagree with the holding in Lawrence? If so, I must have you confused with another ...agoras but I don't think so.
So states draw the line different places. Age is a mitigating factor. Not always, not for all crimes and not in all circumstances. Some states draw the line differently. Some states don't execute people who committed heinous murderous acts before age 18, but don't want to rule it out and don't want to set an arbitrary line.
It wasn't a joke. But as you wish.
Truer words were never spoken. You have no understanding of what I am discussing. But I still think you favored Keenedys holding in Lawrence v Texas. Am I wrong?
I suppose you support the finding for the defendant in the Jones vs Smith case which was decided in Hoboken district in 1947? C'mon, am I wrong?
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.