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.
At the time in question, 30 year olds were likely to about to be grandfathers. And also fairly likely to be dead.
Actually they were put in to enforce and apply the Constitution. Also to serve as judges of original jurisdiction in a few situtations spelled out in the Constitution.
Old Beelzebub might just a big surprise when he does that.
In general, it's not a question of protecting them from themselves, but rather one of protecting society from their irresponsibility.
That's not a bad idea. However sometimes it's not Congress' ox that is being gored by the Supreme Court. It's often the states or the people's ox, and Congress usually benefits by getting yet more power over the States and the people.
I think I'd like your Super-majority override combined with a system where the Judges and Justices stand for "continuation" every 4 or 6 years. In states where this is done for state judges and Supreme Court justices, the vast majority are continued in office, if for no other reason than no one has even heard of them. However the really bad apples are occasional removed.
On that issue I beg to differ. The eighth amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, prohibits such, that is is it enumerates an immunity from cruel and unusual punishment. The fourteenth amendment prohibits the states from infringing on the privileges and immunities of US Citizens.
Here's my concern: anything less than a lifetime appointment turns the high court into a political football; one that's in "play" way too often.
A high court that can be overturned by the will of the people through their elected officials, IMHO, would be the surest way to return the three branches of our government to coequals.
Right now, regardless of tenure, the Supreme Court and its decisions are untouchable.
Sometimes the nebulous is necessary, and correct. Remember that these "children" have taken another human being's life - and in some cases numerous lives. By the consentual act of murdering one or more people, they have cast off the protections afforded by our society to those under 18.
What you see as a 'lack of privelege' for kids can also be viewed as an abundance of protection. Seventeen year olds have been deemed to not be prepared for entering into long-term financial contracts (like credit cards), and thus are not allowed to do so, ostensibly for their own protection. The same reasoning applies to entering the armed forces - a seventeen year old needs parental permission to sign up.
For "kids" who get into a big fight, where someone is seriously injured or killed, without wantonly looking for the trouble they ended landing in, I could perhaps agree with your standpoint. But for a fifteen year old to go on a murder spree because they know they will not receive serious punishment (i.e.: they won't be prosecuted as an adult) means that the protections afforded a 'child' have now become license to kill - without having any lasting effect on their adult lives.
IMO, for the law to provide such a legal umbrella to individuals who wantonly destroy life is chilling - it means that the sixteen year old boy next door now can rape, murder, and dismember my twelve year old daughter with less than two years of his life in jeopardy - and an expunged record when he hits eighteen.
It is not the provision of "adult privelege" that is at issue here - it is the application of juvenile protections as a shield against all lasting effects of the worst possible behaviors of an individual 'child'.
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.