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.
The whole point is, this should be a state issue. The USSC should not be using international "standards" to legislate morality.
Scalia Renquist and Thomas are it for common sense - the rest of them should be impeached.
Thanks. Great site. just read Lee v. Weismann.
If we read further into his dissent we get the following:
We need not look far to find studies contradicting the Court's conclusions. As petitioner points out, the American Psychological Association (APA), which claims in this case that scientific evidence shows persons under 18 lack the ability to take moral responsibility for their decisions, has previously taken precisely the opposite position before this very Court. In its brief in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U. S. 417 (1990), the APA found a "rich body of research" showing that juveniles are mature enough to decide whether to obtain an abortion without parental involvement. Brief for APA as Amicus Curiae, O. T. 1989, No. 88-805 etc., p. 18. The APA brief, citing psychology treatises and studies too numerous to list here, asserted: "[B]y middle adolescence (age 14-15) young people develop abilities similar to adults in reasoning about moral dilemmas, understanding social rules and laws, [and] reasoning about interpersonal relationships and interpersonal problems." Id., at 19-20 (citations omitted). Given the nuances of scientific methodology and conflicting views, courts--which can only consider the limited evidence on the record before them--are ill equipped to determine which view of science is the right one. Legislatures "are better qualified to weigh and 'evaluate the results of statistical studies in terms of their own local conditions and with a flexibility of approach that is not available to the courts.' " McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U. S. 279, 319 (1987) (quoting Gregg, supra, at 186).
Rehnquist was appointed by Nixon.
Stevens was appointed by Ford.
O'Connor, Scalia and Kennedy were appointed by Reagan.
Souter and Thomas were appointed by GHW Bush.
Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed by Clinton.
I have a big problem with double standards. If you're not old enough (legally) to sign a contract, or own property, I have a real problem assigning adult penalties in the judicial system. Either you're an adult or you're not.
That texas case on sodomy and now this! The british are getting their revenge on US through our courts now with those blackies looking to the EU for guidence and NOT the constitution!
The court ... claims halfheartedly that a national consensus has emerged since our decision in Stanford, because 18 states - or 47 percent of states that permit capital punishment - now have legislation prohibiting the execution of offenders under 18, and because all of four states have adopted such legislation since Stanford. Words have no meaning if the views of less than 50 percent of death penalty states can constitute a national consensus.
OUCH ... what a smack down
Good!
A VERY SERIOUS WOW!!!
They were talking about this on the radio yesterday, I think on Glenn Beck, or Hannity. Justice Roy Moore was on. He has just written a book about the courts making up laws and not following the US Constition. He said something about the 1st Amendment and that it would be Unconstitutional to write it as it is written according to the Supreme Court and the way they rule today. I can't remember exactly how he put it, but he was brilliant. Kind of a Catch 22. Someone said you can't define the word Religion, but Moore said it was already defined, I think he said by William O Douglas.... many years ago.
But Justice Roy Moore said that the Supreme Court is doing right the opposite of what it is supposed to be doing. Mark Levin has a new book about the Supremes, too. Men in Black.
O'Connor's dissent:
The Court's decision today establishes a categorical rule forbidding the execution of any offender for any crime committed before his 18th birthday, no matter how deliberate, wanton, or cruel the offense. Neither the objective evidence of contemporary societal values, nor the Court's moral proportionality analysis, nor the two in tandem suffice to justify this ruling.
Although the Court finds support for its decision in the fact that a majority of the States now disallow capital punishment of 17-year-old offenders, it refrains from asserting that its holding is compelled by a genuine national consensus. Indeed, the evidence before us fails to demonstrate conclusively that any such consensus has emerged in the brief period since we upheld the constitutionality of this practice in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U. S. 361 (1989).
Instead, the rule decreed by the Court rests, ultimately, on its independent moral judgment that death is a disproportionately severe punishment for any 17-year-old offender. I do not subscribe to this judgment. Adolescents as a class are undoubtedly less mature, and therefore less culpable for their misconduct, than adults. But the Court has adduced no evidence impeaching the seemingly reasonable conclusion reached by many state legislatures: that at least some 17-year-old murderers are sufficiently mature to deserve the death penalty in an appropriate case. Nor has it been shown that capital sentencing juries are incapable of accurately assessing a youthful defendant's maturity or of giving due weight to the mitigating characteristics associated with youth.
On this record--and especially in light of the fact that so little has changed since our recent decision in Stanford--I would not substitute our judgment about the moral propriety of capital punishment for 17-year-old murderers for the judgments of the Nation's legislatures. Rather, I would demand a clearer showing that our society truly has set its face against this practice before reading the Eighth Amendment categorically to forbid it.
From Mark Levin's book about the Supreme Court,
Men In Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America
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.
He is one of the most brilliant minds today.
The legal system doesn't work well with fuzzy or ambiguous terms. It works much better with the quantifiable. 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. It really does need to be written in stone.
Yes and no.
Nixon appointed Stevens to the federal bench but Ford nominated him to the Supreme Court. See here.
You aare 100% RIGHT! They have FAR EXCEEDED the power granted them by the Constitution!
Not all under 18 are tried in an Adult court
That is decided on a case by case bases and the type of crime committed and not all states have the death penalty
The Supreme Court today just took that right of the States away
I agree. My son is almost 21, will be 21 in May, in the meantime he can't even buy a beer.
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.