Justice Scalia’s Dissent [Juvenile Killers]

FindLaw ^ | 3-01-05 | Justice Scalia

[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.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Thanks for the link.

[YOUGOTIT]

These are not children they are cold blooded killers who planed and executed not one but several humans (some were children (like the two girls age 7 and 9 in Alabama) they executed). He even bragged that he would get away with it because he was under age. Looks as if he was correct. If you want to live with killers move in with them or invite them to live in your house.

[confederate66]

Are we gonna type words on a screen or start a movement to flush the current system of SCJ life time appointees?

[Right_in_Virginia]

or start a movement to flush the current system of SCJ life time appointees?

I have no problem with the lifetime appointment, in fact, I rather favor it.

BUT, I do want to see a change to the current system that knocks the SCJ off their high bench and prevents them from creating law and disregarding American opinion.

I want Congress to have the right to override a supreme court decision---make it a super majority vote---but we need to make this a reality.

If the Congress can override the President...then the Congress should be able to override the courts!

It's past time to put the judicial branch of our government back in its intended place.

[northernlightsII]

Right and wrong did not evolve,it was wrong,killing a killer is right,was right then is right now.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

In terms of debate rules, I think you win.

In terms of the argument, I am glad the Supreme Court decided as it did.

[Drawsing]

So if you grew up in a white family in the south in the early 1800's you would have thought slavery to be wrong? You would have thought that blacks were equal in every respect to whites?

Doesn't matter what I or anyone else would have thought back then. Human opinion is irrelevant in determining absolute right and wrong. I say this because I believe that God has determined these things. With respect, you and I may be standing on different foundations in this matter. If so, arguing may be pointless for both of us.

[BillF]

Ping.

[jrestrepo]

Part of the problem is that this is all inconsistent and arbitrary. All people < 18 are not equal but that is where the line has been drawn for now. What makes this different is that this is not just the prosecution of a crime, it is the prosecution of the only crime that ends all the rights of the victims. That is why under 18 requires scrutiny. To get to mu point on inconsistent, girls under 18 are deemed to have the metal faculties to abort their unborn children. How is it that they are mature enough for that, but not mature enough to understand murder?

[ragnark]

National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago says 62% of Americans favor death penalty.

34% favor it for kids under 18.

Seems like the justices were well in line with American public opinion too, unless that's decided entirely by you.

[1LongTimeLurker]

God has determined these things.

Really? Who's God?

Would this be the God who killed most of the planet off during the Noah's ark flood, or the God who through Jesus taught us to love our enemies?

How do you deal with the fact that the Catholic Church is vehemently anti death penalty - arguing that it is morally wrong. Do you agree?

[A Jovial Cad]

Cute non-answer "answer."

[firewalk]

.

[Smedley]

All but two of the current sitting Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans.

Yes, and I would advocate impeaching several of them, esp. Kennedy, at the same time as Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter.

[csvset]

Hey Wally, how come the Supreme Court says it's ok for teen aged killers not to get the death penalty?

Geeze Beav, it sounds like something Eddie Haskell would dream up. Creepy, isn't it?

[Drawsing]

My faith in God is based on a long and varied accumulation of evidence that has impinged itself on my senses over the years. You seem to imply there are two Gods represented in the two Testaments, but a careful study shows it is the same God with the same qualities of love, wrath, mercy and justice. Some aspects of his purpose and plan will remain a mystery, but his reality has become plain and evident to me.

As to the Catholic church's death penalty stance...I disagree. I respect their right to have an opinion, but I think it is clear from scripture that God's people should respect and work with the civil government to keep order and administer justice. The death penalty was a part of the civil government of the Biblical Israelites. We can learn from their example.

[sevry]

You say that the Bible supports capital punishment for minors.

a) They will be middle-aged when their appeals run out. You don't think Scott Peterson is going to 'the chair' just yet, do you? Sure there was the trial, and the big ta-do outside the courthouse. I was there. But he won't be executed. If he is, history will have long moved on, as it were. b) it's tailor made for gangsters. Grab a kid, coerce a kid, con a kid, and some kids are ready made to be 'tough guys' - becaaaaauuuse, the state won't execute him for a ruthless, well planned, bloody and remorseless execution-style murder. After all, poor wiwwle is 'just-a-kid'.

That's ultimately not the issue in this case, as far as many critics are concerned. This issue is what is the standard for justice - OUR CONSTITUTION . . or someone else's?

If the Breyer's and Kennedy's (a Reagan appointee - oops), and Ginzbergers and so on admire 'euro' standards or those of our sub-saharan or far east 'brethren' in statehood, then let's remind people of the flaw of 'cultural relativism'. If you wanna be - just like 'em - then call for genocide, as done in sub-saharan africa (they just made a movie about it). If you wanna be - just like 'em - then adopt the French system where one is effectively guilty until proven innocent. If you wanna be - all these Court wanna be's - just like the Soviets, the petition to have statues of Stalin built in the public square, just like Putin apparently is considering. If you wanna be.

In other words, 'cultural relativism' is so phony, so self-selective, so arbitrary that it COULD NEVER pose any sort of standard for any just system of laws. Never mind the fact that WE ALREADY HAVVVVEEE . . . a Constitution. I think they should pass a resolution, a sense of the Congress, advising the Justices to take a day, and read the Constitution of the United States. They should do it.