Justice Scalia’s Dissent [Juvenile Killers]

FindLaw ^ | 3-01-05 | Justice Scalia

[El Gato]

Plenty of stay-at-home 30-year-olds act like that, too

At the time in question, 30 year olds were likely to about to be grandfathers. And also fairly likely to be dead.

[El Gato]

These justices were put into office to interpret the Constitution.

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.

[El Gato]

The Constitution is the last law, and it's down, and the Devil is turning round on us now.

Old Beelzebub might just a big surprise when he does that.

[El Gato]

If we want to protect them from themselves with regard to the activities that I listed, then how do we then say that they should be subject to execution?

In general, it's not a question of protecting them from themselves, but rather one of protecting society from their irresponsibility.

[El Gato]

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.

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.

[El Gato]

Even if executing minors constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment", nothing in the Constitution actually prohibits States from engaging in cruel and unusual punishment.

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.

[Right_in_Virginia]

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

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.

[MortMan]

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'.

[IrishCatholic]

There are far too many posts to read as I am leaving work in ten minutes. But I would reply to yours. It is not the decision but how it was reached. That is important. The courts have completely overstepped the bounds by which they were designed. They now openly refer to foreign law and standards. In speeches they openly admit and state that international law should influence our laws.
This is a cause for outrage. You can be against the death penalty or for it. This is a cause for outrage. If there is any hope for American law, Scalia becomes chief justice and we appoint enough real judges to start to reverse the damage they are causing.