CNN: US SUPREME COURT: ALL DEATH PENALTY CASES WITH JUVENILE KILLERS THROWN OUT!

CNN on TV

[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.

[Protagoras]

But I still think you favored Keenedys holding in Lawrence v Texas.

That damn Keenedy, I never agree with him/her. (Who is Keenedy?)

[mware]

Now is we could only get the same ones to rule that it is unconstitutional to execute unborn babies.

[jwalsh07]

LOL, spelling police, typo man. A real man for all seasons.

Did you or did you not support Kennedy's "transcendent liberty" in the penumbra holding regarding the sodomy case in Texas, Lawrence v Texas?

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Haven't you all read the Constitution?!

U.S. Constitution, Article V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate , Or, arbitrarily by any five members of the Supreme Court.

[Protagoras]

Did you or did you not support Kennedy's "transcendent liberty" in the penumbra holding

What on earth about the penumbra on the Hoboken case????? Are you crazy? Don't you realize the implications of that????

Talk about transcendent!!

[jwalsh07]

I understand your reticence. Not good form for libertarians to wear a sign advertising statist on their forehead.

Get back to me when you can shave.

[Petronski]

What's the mystery? I wouldn't like the final result or the method used to reach it.

[Protagoras]

CLEVELAND v. POLICY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CORP. et al.

THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!

[Protagoras]

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I agree with them. Killing a 15 year old child is not my idea of just punishment reguardless of what they have done. I have no problem with them sitting in jail for a long time though. I am infavor of the death penality but not for young children.

I'm in favor of 15 year olds not going on rampages and killing innocent people, maybe raping and robbing them in the process. I think that's unjust. But, hey, what do I know?

[Vicomte13]

Both.

I don't think that removing lifetime tenure solves the problem of abuse of power, which needs to be addressed directly, and does not require amending the Constitution.

(1) When the Supreme Court steps beyond the bounds of judicial review and starts making up law out of wholecloth (e.g.: Roe v. Wade, or the Death Penalty case today), it abuses the law and its power and exercises authority it does not have. Abuse of office is an impeachable offense, whether it's President Nixon who does it or a Federal Judge.
While Congress prepared articles of impeachment against federal judges who abuse their power,
(2) Obviously the Executive Branch must disregard unconstitutional decisions of the Supreme Court. Any act of government, whether it be issued by a court, a legislature or the President, which does not have legal authority deriving from the Constitution, is an abusive act that is void, and MUST NOT BE enforced by the covalent branches of government.

That is the more muscular and direct answer, and it avoids the problem of pussyfooting around with Constitutional Amendments. Anyway, it does no good to amend the Constitution if the Supreme Court reserves to itself an unlimited, unchallenged, open ended right to define what words mean.

The challenge CANNOT come legally, because the Supreme Court DOES control the interpretation of law. It has to be a frontal political assault: Congress and the President flatly overruling Supreme Court decisions as abuses of power and impeaching and removing Federal Judges.
That is the entire answer, and it is the only answer that really WORKS within the Constitution.

[DB]

If you are old enough to do the crime, you're old enough to pay the price.

As far as "cruelty" goes, being a teenager and facing life in prison is far crueler than getting it over with.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

juveniles will end up serving life behind bars , which is probably more of a punishment than to just end their lives quickly. They'll spend a lifetime with a lot of time to sit and think about what they had done to end up behind bars.

Wouldn't that time be better spent burning in Hell?

Honestly, I can't believe the number of atheists on this list!

[BigSkyFreeper]

How the Sam Hell do you arrive at the conclusion I'm an atheist? If it's a religious issue, more people would be for life.

[CIB-173RDABN]

Because most people simply are not killers.

---

I am not sure what your point is. By definition this thread is about individuals that murder. The subject is, should those that murder be executed (regardless of age).

The Surpreme Court just ruled that you get a pass until your 18th birtday, I happen to think the circumstances rather then an arbitrary date of birth should decide if an individual deserves the death penalty.

I support the death penalty, I can suppose you don't. We will just have to agree to disagree.

I can gurantee you one thing. I will gurantee one of these young men let off of death row will one day be let out of prison, and he will kill another innocent person, and the blood of that person will be on the hands of the justices that allowed him to walk free.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Mama Tried
M. Haggard

The first thing I remember knowin' was a lonesome whistle blowin',
And a youngun's dream of growin' up to ride,
On a freight train leavin' town, not knowin' where I'm bound.
And no one could change my mind but Mama tried.
One and only rebel child from a fam'ly meek and mild
My mama seemed to to know what lay in store,
'Spite all my Sunday learnin' towards the bad I kept on turnin',
'Til Mama couldn't hold me anymore.

And I turned twenty-one in prison doin' life without parole,
No one could steer me right but Mama tried, Mama tried.
Mama tried to raise me better, but her pleading I denied
And that leaves only me to blame, cause Mama tried

Dear ole' Daddy, rest his soul left my mom a heavy load,
She tried so very hard to feel his shoes,
Workin' hours without rest, wanted me to have the best
She tried to raise me right but I refused.

And I turned twenty-one in prison doin' life without parole,
No one could steer me right but Mama tried, Mama tried
Mama tried to raise me better but her pleading I denied
And that leaves only me to blame, cause Mama tried

[COEXERJ145]

Actually it was: "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." (Some say Jackson never said this but I suspect he probably did.)

Jackson appointed Taney to replace John Marshall on the Supreme Court when Marshall died.

[RinaseaofDs]

Really.

Given the current national high school dropout rate (30%), and the relationship between drugs, organized crime, and youth gangs, you don't believe that there is any meaningful deterrent value to having the death statute applied to 12 year olds?

Oh, and I forgot to mention a new revenue stream for gangs - infiltrating terrorists. Given all of this, you think we ought to take the needle away from juvenile murder sentencing?

I think the Supremes continue to go around the bend. I'm not sure where everyone fell at 5-4, but I can guess that Scalia, Thomas, Renquest, and somebody else dissented.

[Vicomte13]

Right you are.
I think he probably said it too.
Unfortunately, I think that the case at hand was the Supreme Court's effort to prevent the Cherokee Trail of Tears, so I while Jackson's sentiments are entertaining, his cause in that instance was wrong.

By contrast, Lincoln's steady nullification of Taney's Supreme Court during the Lincoln Presidency is a good, muscular example of a President (with a Congress to back him) simply refusing to allow judges to assert power they did not have.

Do they have it NOW?
Well, nobody has challenged them on it for 160 years.
Probably yes.

[Ready4Freddy]

Not really, you just addressed their ages. Now, Mad Mammoth, on the other hand.......

Guess I spoke too soon.