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.
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.
This will be the case to draw the line in the sand. The bare majority of the Supreme Court has set itself up as arbiter of not only what is in the constitution, but also what the consensus is of the citizens of the United States.
That is where the battle must lie. They cannot be allowed to bypass the people in determining what the people feel is the consensus. That's what elections are for.
This cannot be allowed to stand. This must be overturned by action by the citizens. We must rise up and tell them how we feel.
And I think this may be the case for Justice Scalia to ride to the Chief Justice position on the Court when Rhenquist moves on.
"That "almost every State prohibits those under 18 years of age from voting, serving on juries, or marrying without parental consent," ante, at 15, is patently irrelevant--and is yet another resurrection of an argument that this Court gave a decent burial in Stanford. (What kind of Equal Justice under Law is it that--without so much as a "Sorry about that"--gives as the basis for sparing one person from execution arguments explicitly rejected in refusing to spare another?)
As we explained in Stanford, 492 U. S., at 374, it is "absurd to think that one must be mature enough to drive carefully, to drink responsibly, or to vote intelligently, in order to be mature enough to understand that murdering another human being is profoundly wrong, and to conform one's conduct to that most minimal of all civilized standards." Serving on a jury or entering into marriage also involve decisions far more sophisticated than the simple decision not to take another's life.
"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
It means that the Constitution has no force on limiting government authority - no force on limiting the power of the court. What those five bastards have done is to set the stage for some very unpleasent times in the near future - when people will no longer have any respect for the Rule of Law and simply make up their own rules - the law of the jungle will prevail.
"till there is some sort of parody..." believe me, there is parody. It can be seen in the acts of this sublimely arrogant SC and their mincing affectation of European elites, whose supposedly greater appreciation of cultural matters they supplant our Constitution with. It is a parody of justice and a parody of our Constitution. In fact, they are a farcical act and a parody of US Supreme Court Justices.
If you mean parity in the case of youthful offenders, as I believe you do, please leave something to the state legislatures, duly elected by the people. There are sixteen year olds and sixteen year olds with a difference. Let the people decide, not 5---FIVE--self aggrandizing SCs who think they are Royals.
The fact they were mostly appointed by Republicans just shows how the party is infected by RINOS.
Does anyone know the other dissenter---Scalia, Thomas, Renquist, and.....?
vaudine
If only there were more like him on the highest court.
I beg your pardon?
The law makes such determinations all the time. Consider witness testimony by a minor. A judge will make an initial finding as to whether a child witness has sufficient cognitive capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, truth and a lie (reality and make believe). If the judge is satisfied that the child has sufficient cognitive capacity, the judge will allow the child to testify. But that jury still has to make an independent determination as to credibility of the testimony. None of these determinations is "quantifiable" in an absolute objective sense.
By their inherent nature, arbitrary distinctions work a greater injustice.
I appreciate them.
I just wish the electorate could have come to their senses-and become aware of how many legislative prerogatives are being usurped by the judiciary-prior to the most outrageous decisions handed down by the gay "marriage" enthusiasts.
-good times, G.J.P.(Jr.)
Wasn't Sununnunnu the one that pushed for Souter? What the heck ever happened to him? He used to be on tv all the time. Is he hiding out in shame over that Souter appointment, or rejoicing that the 'clubbercrat' faction of the GOP got another one of theirs on the Court?
Praise God for Justice Scalia.
But I wonder, is it too late for our free republic?
This is an unfunded mandate.
Precedent/stare decisis is only an obstacle to reversal in abortion cases.
Any time the Justices use the word "evolving", as in "evolving standards," in a majority opinion, you can be sure the legal "basis" for the decision is a crock o'doo.
The last time they overturned the death penalty, they did it based on "evolving standards." When the states kept enacting death penalty schemes and sending them up to the SCOTUS, they finally relented and allowed its reinstatement.
Now we're "evolving" again. Sickening.
Oh, yeah, and talk about "evolving standard" . . .
These pinheads overturned the laws of 19 states, laws which the Court had upheld in the past, based on their view that standards are "evolving."
However, they refuse to do anything about the fact that the Court based Roe v. Wade primarily on the fact that, medical science at that point had not established that an unborn baby was viable before the first trimester, ipso facto it was okay to kill it.
Well, the state of medical science has "evolved," people, and we know a lot more about what is going on in the womb (as if it's a big surprise, but that's another issue. . .). But no need to "evolve" our standards for abortion, I see.
Yes, what the legislatures can do is keep passing laws based on any little opening they can find in this dumb opinion.
After the Court struck down the death penalty last time, the states that wanted the death penalty just kept passing laws and sending them up to the Court, basically. They just kept at it.
Finally, the Court came along and said oops, and reversed themselves . . . again . . . and again found the death penalty constitutional.
this shows how polarized the court is. and how the "gang of 5" in the majority on this (and other) decisions, will never resign due to age or health reasons - they will serve until the hearse takes them away so long as a republican president is in office.
Bump for later read!
Most "moderates" are flaming liberals. At least, in black robes.
FYI, W.
YES! The pro-life movement needs to get in there quickly and often, arguing exactly this: that minors don't have the maturity to decide to have an abortion without parental notification.
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.