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.
Well, isn't this just great?
The solons on the Missouri Supreme Court-which, if I'm not mistaken, is right up there with the Delian League, in terms of sober deliberative bodies reaching fair and equitable decisions-have finally divined the implicit meaning of what are founding fathers so painstakingly set out to accomplish two centuries ago.
Really, what would us benighted citizens ever do without the keen, penetrating insight and unmatched wisdom of these benign, robed despots?
Very nicely said. Of course you must be referring to the folks Lyn Nofziger calls, "those clowns on the Federal bench." Yours was aesthetically pleasing and Lyn's was the soul of brevity, but you both exhibited pinpoint accuracy.
AMENDMENT VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election f or the choice of Electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or Elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Funny... *I* don't see anything there even hinting that those under 18yrs are exempt from capital punishment.
I think Scalia is right on the money here. I don't agree with the death penalty for various reasons, but it's not the Supreme Court's business to use the 8th Amendment to decide that issue for the states. If you are going to have constitutional principles, you should be willing to stick by them even if the "result" is one that you abhor.
Then the answer is to work within the relevant culture to change the law through the legislature, or use "moral suasion" to convince the jury pool that it would be wrong to execute 17 year olds.
Wow!
Indeed!
Describe, if you would, the transformation the brain undergoes on the day one turns 18. Is there really a difference in maturity between someone who is 18 minus one week versus someone who is 18 plus one week?
Or are you simply opposed to the death penalty, and will take anything you can get towards its abolishment?
Scalia has raised the alarm in this opinion. He is Paul Revere warning of the invasion.
We must fix the courts. We must rid ourselves of every elected official who will not reign in the courts.
They brag that they rule the world. In that brag they include you and me. It's sickening.
The law can only deal with the quantifiable. The law is wholly inadequate to deal with maturity levels. You may be ready to take on the responsibility to drive at 15 1/2, but it doesn't matter, you can't get a license until you turn 16. No matter how abitrary, the law only works well with hard and fast cut-offs.
Sounds a lot like Saudi Arabia.
How does one codify the concept of playing God? I much prefer a known quantity, such as an absolute chronological age, no matter how arbitrary.
I would call that a Scathing Dissent!
YoW!
Once again, do you realize that you are talking about executing children?
Actually we were talking about executing MURDERERS.
That's ridiculous. By your standard, the murderer who is 17 years, 23 hours, and 59 minutes old escapes ultimate culpability while someone a few minutes older gets the needle. That's a bit of bureaucractic stupidity I had hoped we would never see.
Read Justice O'Connor's dissent, I posted it earlier in the thread. It answers your assertion succinctly and directly.
DAAAAAAYUM!!! Scalia tore up some A$$ with that dissent. I just returned from reading his entire dissent, and he is very impressive. He is also correct.
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.