Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Kennedy's Death Penalty Opinion Cites "World Opinion" and International "Amicus" Briefs
US Supreme Court ^ | 3/1/05 | Justice Kennedy

Posted on 03/01/2005 8:49:19 AM PST by crushkerry

Go to pages 21-25 of the Opinion (can't post the text here) and read Justice Kennedy's opinion on how we need to take into account world opinion and how the Court should look to "the leading members of the European Community" in deciding on some cases. If you never thought Judges were important, you should now. (This doesn't apply to most Freepers.

If anyone could find a way to print Pages 21-25 of the Opinion, in which Kennedy discusses the topic please copy it. Thanks


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last
Comment #61 Removed by Moderator

To: jasoncann

the US Supreme Court of Europe, gasp!


62 posted on 03/01/2005 10:24:11 AM PST by bigsigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: crushkerry

Do We, The People, have any recourse when and if it becomes apparent that the SCOTUS has made this nation and it's citizens accountable to an international court?

Short of revolution, that is.

Or do we have to sit by and watch the Senate GOP play nice so the Senate can conduct their own business at the expense of ours?


63 posted on 03/01/2005 10:35:07 AM PST by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: crushkerry

"Yet at least from the time of the Court’s decision in Trop, the Court has referred to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments.”"

What year is the Trop case that he is referring to? Anyone know? What was the precedent set?


64 posted on 03/01/2005 10:40:51 AM PST by Shazolene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
I actually don't see a problem with this passage. This is just a wide-ranging discussion of international trends and SCOTUS's history of ruling on the 8th Amendment.

I tend to agree. The majority isn't claiming they are bound by international law or trends, but rather, is generally discussing the laws and trends in other countries as they relate to criminal justice under the 8th Amendment. That's not much different than looking to the Magna Carta, Common Law of England, or even the Bible for perspective. Now if the SCOTUS claims it is bound to construe the Constitution based upon international laws and trends, then I have a real problem.

65 posted on 03/01/2005 10:44:28 AM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #66 Removed by Moderator

To: siunevada
Might be time for Congress to make some Exceptions or Regulations. Checks and Balances and that sort of thing.

The Court would just find the Exceptions and Regulations to be unconstitutional. Only a Constitutional amendment can overrule them. That and the exercise of the second amendment, but I don't think we are quite there.....yet.

Constitutional change is needed to reign in the Courts. Probably remove the lifetime appointment clause for Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges. I'd have them appointed, with advice and consent, but then make them stand election for "continuance", as is done in at least one state.

67 posted on 03/01/2005 10:47:47 AM PST by El Gato (Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
Part of the problem is that few people have ever actually read a SCOTUS decision. They're normally wide-ranging intellectual discussions that include passages on history, politics and societal trends in addition to actual case law.

It's easy for people to get excited about one passage taken out of context of a 25 page decision, I guess.

68 posted on 03/01/2005 10:50:47 AM PST by Modernman ("Normally, I don't listen to women, or doctors." - Captain Hero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: crushkerry

I know there is a pony in here somewhere...


69 posted on 03/01/2005 10:52:40 AM PST by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Scalia saw a problem with it.

"...and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent."

70 posted on 03/01/2005 10:57:59 AM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
They're normally wide-ranging intellectual discussions

They are a CLOSED debate of nine souls on matters of utmost importance and urgency that affect 280 million citizens, a closed debate society whose decisions typically bind those 280 million citizens not for mere months or even years, but for generations.

71 posted on 03/01/2005 11:02:36 AM PST by JCEccles (If Jimmy Carter were a country, he'd be Canada.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: crushkerry; All
You had a sad duty in posting this execrable decision. Several posters asked what oath the Justices take before joining the bench. I agree with those who conclude that five Justices of the Supreme Court violated their oath of office in today's decision.

But this is not the first time that a majority of this Court has savaged the Constitution. Such a case last year is why I resigned my 32-year membership in the Bar of the Court last July. Click here for, "To the Supreme Court: I Quit!"

I quoted the Justices' oath of office in that article. Readers can determine for themselves whether Justice Kennedy and his four colleagues who voted for this decision, violated their oath of office. Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "By Dawn's Early Light"

72 posted on 03/01/2005 11:04:46 AM PST by Congressman Billybob ("The truth is out there." Yep, it's on the Internet, but it takes digging, and common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank_2001

They don't use international law to interpret our Constitution, they use international law to OVERRIDE it! God, this makes me SO MAD!


73 posted on 03/01/2005 11:09:14 AM PST by johnb838 (Need some wood?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Shazolene
What year is the Trop case that he is referring to? Anyone know? What was the precedent set?

In 1958, the Supreme Court had decided in 
Trop v. Dulles (356 U.S. 86), that the Eighth Amendment contained an "evolving standard of decency that marked the progress of a maturing society." Although Trop was not a death penalty case, abolitionists applied the Court's logic to executions and maintained that the United States had, in fact, progressed to a point that its "standard of decency" should no longer tolerate the death penalty.

74 posted on 03/01/2005 11:09:51 AM PST by So Cal Rocket (Proud Member: Internet Pajama Wearers for Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
They are a CLOSED debate of nine souls on matters of utmost importance and urgency that affect 280 million citizens, a closed debate society whose decisions typically bind those 280 million citizens not for mere months or even years, but for generations.

By wide-ranging, I mean that the text of their opinions cover a lot of ground. Laymen shouldn't be surprised when opinions include details like this. In law school, I've seen opinions that include quotes from Broadway musicals.

It's all dicta. It is not the relevant part of the decision. SCOTUS Justices are not known for their brevity.

75 posted on 03/01/2005 11:10:39 AM PST by Modernman ("Normally, I don't listen to women, or doctors." - Captain Hero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

Supreme Court Justices (Judicial Branch)

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''


76 posted on 03/01/2005 11:12:59 AM PST by Howlin (Free the Eason Jordan Tape!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CameronNB
The only way the citizens have to address the abuses of the court is to elect Presidents who will appoint honest judges. Bush one, Ford and even Reagan betrayed the voters of this country.

That's what scares me the most... it doesn't seem to matter who we elect any more. We are on our own.

77 posted on 03/01/2005 11:13:04 AM PST by johnb838 (Need some wood?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
Dissenting opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia:

The court ... claims halfheartedly that a national consensus has emerged since our decision in Stanford, because 18 states - or 47 percent of states that permit capital punishment - now have legislation prohibiting the execution of offenders under 18, and because all of four states have adopted such legislation since Stanford. Words have no meaning if the views of less than 50 percent of death penalty states can constitute a national consensus.

78 posted on 03/01/2005 11:14:28 AM PST by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Does this generation have the courage to have a Boston Tea party?

Yeah, we've got the courage, but let's go to Seattle this time and toss their coffee into Puget Sound...

79 posted on 03/01/2005 11:14:52 AM PST by FDNYRHEROES (Make welfare as hard to get as a building permit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
SCOTUS Justices are not known for their brevity.

As opposed to their hubris and elitism, for which these unelected lawyers are renowned.

80 posted on 03/01/2005 11:15:05 AM PST by JCEccles (If Jimmy Carter were a country, he'd be Canada.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson