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.
Why is capital punishment "cruel and unusual" while incarceration is not?
If the answer is because the former is irreversible, how does one give back the prison time?
I think a reasonable interpretation of the cruel and unusual clause is based on societal morays at the current time, not based on some standard extant 250 years ago. Thus I don't agree with Scalia on that. But there is no societal consensus in America that giving 16 and 17 year old minors the death penalty is cruel and unusual. Thus even though I oppose such sentences as a public policy matter, I agree with the balance of Scalia's dissent and would have dissented too. The temptation of judges to exercise power, and abuse such power, is powerful indeed.
Not executing a 16-year-old murderer is okay, though I think it is probably better to execute them. But the Supreme Court decision today was OUTRAGEOUS. Everything conservatives have said about judicial activism for 30-40 years was on display today. Read Scalia's dissent.
Actually, I think through trial and error, we have come out about right. There is some recent research that the maturation process is not across all areas evenly, but some areas precede others.
So, the long and short of it is that driving is one thing and drinking booze is quite another. That additional five years is quite important.
"There needs to be a legal age, upon which one is an adult, has adult privilages, and can be charged as an adult in a court of law."
Adult privileges are something that is allowed based on a person's presumption of maturity.
Crimes are based on what a person does.
No, we do not need to have them equal.
Sorry, couldn't disagree more.
"Children's brains are different."
No, but they are generally less mature than adules.
"They should be treated different."
The ones that are less mature should, yes.
"I beleive they are redeemable."
That largely depends on the person in question. This goes for adults, as well as children.
"I will assume those of you who do not are atheists."
I am a strong Christian. Christianity has nothing to do with this. This is about crime and punishment. Those who do not commit murder do not have to worry about whether or not they will receive the death penalty. Those who do commit murder have taken a loved one from someone else and forced a huge pain on the surviving family and friends that does not go away.
The answer is totallity. If you're dead, we can't give you your life back. If you turn out to be innocent, too bad. We can't give you your life back in part. We can't give it back in whole.
By contrast, if we sentence you to 40 years, and it turns out that you're innocent within that that span, while it's regretable that we can't really give you back the years you served in error, we can at least give you back the years that you'd yet to serve. That's sure as hell a better deal to the innocent than being dead.
His opinions are great reading but sad. We need GW to get us some Scalias. I truly believe he'll go to the mat for us on this one. I hope so.
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.
This is horrifying. These justices were put into office to interpret the Constitution. By bringing in foreign courts and legislatures which Americans never voted on, they undermine the very idea of republican governance.
Those justices should be impeached. Wishful thinking, I know.
"Once again, do you realize that you are talking about executing children?"
The average time someone spends in prision after receiving a death sentence is nearly 20 years. We do not execute children.
Also, you are wrong about us and Somalia. Iran executes children while they are children for not abiding by ramadan and other non-criminal acts.
"I wish the court would grant the unborn the same right to life that they grant to 17 year-old murderers."
I was thinking how ironic this was.
"How sick is this?"
Actually, I like your word for it better: SICK.
PDFs are wonderful. Thank you for the link!
Tells us all we need to know about a Party that's been cowardly and unprincipled for a looog time now.
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."
Strict rules and precedents? We don need one Strict rules and precedents!
Men In Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America
Mark R. Levin
(From the Inside Flap)
The Supreme Court Endorses Terrorists’ Rights, Flag Burning, and Importing Foreign Law.
Is that in the Constitution?
You’re right: It’s not. But these days the Constitution is no restraint on our out-of-control Supreme Court. The Court imperiously strikes down laws and imposes new ones purely on its own arbitrary whims. Even though liberals like John Kerry are repeatedly defeated at the polls, the majority on the allegedly "conservative" Supreme Court reflects their views and wields absolute power. There’s a word for this: tyranny. In Men in Black, radio talk show host and legal scholar Mark R. Levin dissects the judicial tyranny that is robbing us of our freedoms and stuffing the ballot box in favor of liberal policies. If you’ve ever wondered why—no matter who holds political power—American society always seems to drift to the left, Mark Levin has the answer: the black-robed justices of the Supreme Court, subverting democracy in favor of their own liberal agenda. In Men in Black, you’ll learn:
· How judicial activism upheld slavery and segregation · Why Roe v. Wade not only mandated abortion-on-demand but gutted the Constitution · How the Court imports laws from other countries to help win the culture war for extremists · Why the justices are granting illegal immigrants rights equal with citizens · How helping terrorists file suit against the United States is another innovation of our Supreme Court · Surprise: the liberal Supreme Court Justice who erected the "separation of church and state" was a member of the Ku Klux Klan
Decades of judicial activism have made the Supreme Court the most potent threat to American freedom. Men in Black, as Rush Limbaugh notes in his introduction, "couldn’t be more timely or important, as liberals continue shamelessly to thwart the people, Congress, the president, and state governments by using the courts to dictate national policy.…Men in Black is a tremendously important and compelling book." It could very well be the most important book you read this year.
"Sorry, couldn't disagree more."
Are you in disagreement that Adult privileges are based on presumed maturity?
Or are you disagreeing that crimes are based on a person's actions?
They have FAR EXCEEDED the power granted them by the Constitution!
No they haven't! Don't believe me, just ask them.
I'm saying that our legal is solely able to presume maturity using a quantifiable standard. Chronology.
I'm afraid it's the latter.
Never again...
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.