Posted on 03/01/2005 10:40:45 AM PST by OXENinFLA
Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.
In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people's representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since "[t]he judiciary ... ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, "bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." Id., at 471. Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years--not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to "the evolving standards of decency," ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted), of our national society. It then finds, on the flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people's laws barely 15 years ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: "[I]n the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment." Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--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.
thou doth
It's dost!
Parody? How's that again? Perhaps you meant "parity." Sorry, grammar and spelling police again!
I wish the court would grant the unborn the same right to life that they grant to 17 year-old murderers. How sick is this?
Do you have any idea the types of crimes and murders these "children" have committed???
They are not your every day run of the mill type kids
"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."
Ouch!
He is truly a genius.
Yeah, but your supposed to "chasten him" first. Does this not mean that there is a chance of redemption?
Of course, the Iranians are really into stoning, so perhaps you should move there. Although, darn it, they don't think executing children is civilized either.
Wait, Somalia. There you go. Have a good time.
wow.
that is a Judicial ZOTfest.
not a summons to war - it is a summons to AWE
THIS is the epitome of ZOT!
yeah you are right. It would be great if he got there and then stepped down (retired) in time for Bush to nominate somoene else.
Bork deserved it
Liberals better be careful what they wish for. If the new standard for declaring something constitutional or not is the Nation's changing moral standards, let's see what the left does 5-10 years from now when the SCOTUS declares abortion illegal because the latest series of Gallup polls showed a majority of Americans oppose it. Or wait until the feminists find out they are constitutionally banned from driving :)
From the article:
The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--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.
You tell 'em, Scalia!
And Rehnquist and Thomas joined in his dissent .....
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.