I agree also with the sentiment of the decision. But whether or not I agree, the question is whether the justices really have the authority to define "cruel" this way, usurping state prerogatives. I don't think they do.
While I agree with the policy of not killing teens who commit murders, why does the Supreme Court not allow the legislatures in the states decide what is the right policy? Once again, the Supreme Court is legislating from the bench. This is the type of issue that the people of the states should agonize over, debate and come to a consensus. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents applying corporal punishment to a teenager.
"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.
good point.