Sorry America, you have just created a race of citizens with more rights under the law than any other.
Send your thanks to the DNC, the NYT, Moveon.org, every Kennedy alive, Kerry, Hillary, Pelosi, Schummer, Rangel, and Boxer.
Posted on 03/01/2005 9:50:12 AM PST by advance_copy
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court's decision to ban the execution of juvenile killers will not have an impact on any future Maryland prosecutions of convicted sniper Lee Boyd Malvo, but will have an impact should he be prosecuted in Louisiana.
Maryland law didn't allow for anyone under 18 to be executed before the court's ruling. In Louisiana, the death penalty had been allowed for juveniles.
"Now my intent will be to extradite Malvo to Louisiana and give him the maximum sentence allowable under Louisiana law, which is life without the suspense of probation or parole," John Sinquefield, chief assistant district attorney for East Baton Rouge Parish, tells WTOP.
(Excerpt) Read more at wtop.com ...
How about if terrorists adapt to this ruling and use juvelines for their front line work? The next time they hit us here, think of the outrage when it dawns on people that they won't be able to fry the animals.
Those who are appluading this new law written by the USSC are shortsighted, at the very least.
At the rate things are going I suspect that the general death penalty will be the next thing ruled unconsitutional. They then will say that prison guards and cops shooting someone will also be cruel and unusual and citizens have no right to self defense. I wouldn't be surprised if they rule that the Military have no right to kill the enemy soon and force them to give up their weapons.
We will be living in a liberal paradise where criminals kill at will and only criminals have guns and legal power and the elites will have bodyguards of these criminals to protect them from other criminals and irate members of the terrified public.
This decision NEEDS to be overturned, pronto. The Malvo case was the first thing I thought of when this lunacy was foisted on us. Muslims DO NOT, for what seems to be the millionth time, DO NOT consider boys over 13 to be children.
This opens the door to a whole group of 14 year old adults doing jihad with no fear of real retribution from the country they're jihading against, courtesy the highest court of the country they wish to destroy. Imagine thousands of Lee Malvos or Johnny Jihads, American citizens and imports.
And don't get me started on regular gang bangers. A 16 year old from Philly traveled all the way to VA to murder the wife of a friend as his rite of passage to become a gang banger. The murder took place right next door to my house. I had gone to the grocery store and was only gone a little while. It happened while I was gone. I've always felt a bit of irrational guilt for being gone.
She was a Lebonese Christian, a college professor and well loved by her students and the community and she's dead because a juvie needed to make his first kill and not get caught. That's why he traveled all the way to VA instead of murdering some housewife in Philly, butr he got caught anyway. Nothing will bring her back, but HE will be back to murder anotehr day. As an adult. Society will pay twice over for each of these cases
These are the types of "kids" the Supreme Court is protecting.
Exactly
juvelines? Where did THAT come from?
juveniles, obviously.
"We might have only one last shot at reigning them in (with Bush appointments). If liberals get back in power, we may not see a reversal again short of revolution."
Correct, but if most Americans don't have the awareness to elect those who appoint conservative judges, they're sure not going to buy into a revolution to change the judical system.
However, there are more than a few people interested in the Malvo case. When courts arrogantly shirk their fundamental responsibility to provide simple justice, people will take it into their own hands.
"We might have only one last shot at reigning them in (with Bush appointments). If liberals get back in power, we may not see a reversal again short of revolution."
Correct, but if most Americans don't have the awareness to elect those who appoint conservative judges, they're sure not going to buy into a revolution to change the judical system.
However, there are more than a few people interested in the Malvo case. When courts arrogantly shirk their fundamental responsibility to provide simple justice, people will take it into their own hands.
However, there are more than a few people interested in the Malvo case. When courts arrogantly shirk their fundamental responsibility to provide simple justice, people will take it into their own hands.
If we can't kill em....LOBOTOMIZE them (chemically or surgically)....the will never bother anyone anymore!
First, the assertion about what upsets them, Then
It does not lessen fidelity to the Constitution or pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom
The excuse they give themselves to outlaw the thing that upsets them.
The decision is not just wrong, but juvenile.
Sorry America, you have just created a race of citizens with more rights under the law than any other.
Send your thanks to the DNC, the NYT, Moveon.org, every Kennedy alive, Kerry, Hillary, Pelosi, Schummer, Rangel, and Boxer.
I read lots about that place in James Lee Burke novels.
Just make sure he stays in the DAHLMER suite....
I have a very simple solution here. Congress sets the scope of jurisdiction for the federal courts. Congress should pass a law prohibiting federal courts from citing in their opinions and barring them from considering foreign laws, treaties, etc. unless the foreign law, treaty, etc. is what is in dispute.
Now, the obvious problem with this is that someone may say, "Well, what about the Ten Commandments or the Magna Carta?" Those are historical in nature and can be viewed through the prism of having influenced our nation's founding documents. That's a far cry from a court looking to the latest trendy EU law passed by the MP from Eurotrashland.
So are we going to have to dig up the teens we already executed and clone them ? The next question is that this decision was 5-4. If it is reversed by a later version of SCOTUS, will we execute the ones that got off death row and fry the clones.
The Court should either profess its willingness to reconsider all these matters in light of the views of foreigners,or else it should cease putting forth foreigners’ views as part of the reasoned basis of its decisions. To invoke alien law when it agrees with one’s own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, is not reasoned decision making, but sophistry.
The Court responds that “[i]t does not lessen our fidelity to the Constitution or our pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples simply underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom.” Ante, at 24–25. To begin with, I do not believe that approval by “other nations and peoples” should buttress our commitment to American principles any more than (what should logically follow) disapproval by “other nations and peoples” should weaken that commitment. More importantly, however, the Court’s statement flatly misdescribes what is going on here. Foreign sources are cited today, not to underscore our “fidelity” to the Constitution, our “pride in its origins,” and “our own [American] heritage.” To the contrary, they are cited to set aside the centuries-old American practice—a practice still engaged in by a large majority of the relevant States—of letting a jury of 12 citizens decide whether, in the particular case, youth should be the basis for withholding the death penalty. What these foreign sources “affirm,” rather than repudiate, is the Justices’ own notion of how the world ought to be, and their diktat that it shall be so henceforth in America. The Court’s parting attempt to downplay the significance of its extensive discussion of foreign law is unconvincing. “Acknowledgment” of foreign approval has no place in the legal opinion of this Court unless it is part of the basis for the Court’s judgment— which is surely what it parades as today.
Cordially,
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.