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.
Including 100% of the good ones.
This is a very ominous dissension. Why ? Not only is this going to undermine the justice system, it will also undermine the stability of capital investment. Part of the reason people invest here is that the USA is STABLE. The USSC decision just kicked the legal stbility of this nation and economy in the slats.
Gee THAT is what I was TRYING to say. YOu said it in a sentence or two! Good going!
The Legislative and the Executive branches could do something about this if they had the stomach for it. In our system power cannot be taken, it can only be given. Too bad the other two branches choose to give up their power in the most nauseating fashion possible: cowardly inaction.
Parody: A mocking imitation of the style of a literary work or works which ridicules the stylistic habits of an author or school of writers by exaggerated mimicry.
Oops- parity, my bad, still tired and relying on WORD to fix my noggin'
It is evident that the so-called justices that ruled have not read the Constitution. There is nothing in the 8th Amendment that says anything about age. Further, again they have gone with the left-wing in Socialist Europe in making their decision and have not done what they swore to do uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Parity, I know, I know, I'm not an English major or an old picky biddy looking for fault in language structure or hitting the "o" key rather than the "i" key. But I'm sure I could dig up some of your post and make fun of you too. Or are you perfect?
This is all in the majority's opinion, by the way, just before they unilaterally declare that, as a class, 17 year olds cannot possibly have enough damning factors in their individual crime to justfiy a capital sentence. Raping 47 infants before tossing them into an open barbecue pit, all while singing that they are only doing this because they, as minors, can get away with it... this simply would not be enough... because they are a few weeks away from their 18th birthday.
Yeah, that was me who said that. :-)
Zounds! Am reading his entire dissent, and Justice Scalia is ripping the "international five" a new one!
great post. people want a pat, one-size-fits-all solution so that no one ever has to deliberate and life is just not like that all the time.
Sorry I didn't give you proper credit. I've been posting a lot and was too lazy to go back and see who it was. :-)
....with RAT controlled Senate committees and Senate.
Paula Cooper is mostly to blame for that. At 15, in Gary, IN, she got a friend to go with her to an elderly white woman's home. They asked to come in for "Bible lessons". They robbed her, took her car keys, and Paula sat on top of the elderly woman's chest while stabbing her 37 times in the face, neck, and shouders. She was sentenced to death. Her defense attorney got 2 million signatures (mostly from Italy), and the Supreme Court reversed the sentence. She's due for a parole hearing in about 7 years. She'll be 45, IIRC.
For make no mistake. All nine of the Justices--not just these three honorable dissenters--are fully capable of grasping what was intended by the Eighth Amendment; that we have a Federal system, where the Police powers are reserved to the States; that if public opinion has changed, it would be properly reflected in the adoption of amended State statutes; that it is not established by arbitrary rulings by despotic Justices. All nine would understand those basic principles, but only three felt their oaths require that they honor them.
One more disgusting example of how far we have fallen!
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Breyer is a Clinton appointee. Stevens was appointed by Nixon.
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.