Wow. Legal smackdown, there.
}:-)4
All but two of the current sitting Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans.
Haven't read the article in it's entirety but this quote says it all for me - And not just about this particular decision.
My man Nino.....
At first I was agreeing that maybe kids who committed murder before 18 shouldn't be executed, just kept in prison for the rest of their lives. But then I was reminded Malvo was 17 year old DC serial sniper/killer.
I just wish they would come up with an age where US citizens are legal adults. 18 is old enough to sign a contract or get married to join military. 16 is old enought to drive. But you have to be 21 to buy a beer. I wish they would choose one age, say 19 or 20, and that is the age when everyone becomes a legal adult.
When my youngest had to go to court he was 18. I couldn't speak to the judge because Mike was not a minor, yet he was in court because he WAS a minor. He was with some other college kids who had been drinking a beer. One of them was headed to Iraq the next day, in the military, and they went out and had a beer and played pool. They got caught because it was November and they had the top down on the convertible, not because they were driving bad. It had been 5 1/2 hours since they had their beer.
I felt like Faye Dunnaway in "China Town". She's my sister, my daughter, my sister, my daughter.... as she was slapped over and over by Jack Nicholson.
My son was an adult, not an adult, an adult, not an adult...
Etc.
I blamed myself more than him for being with those kids. I was the one who suggested that he find a ride to and from Lubbock for Thanksgiving, to save the price of an airline ticket. As it was, the ticket for MIC was four times more than a flight would have cost. And he is a good kid and not one who goes out running around and drinking. He is a quiet kid, well behaved, well most of the time.
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.
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.
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.
Zounds! Am reading his entire dissent, and Justice Scalia is ripping the "international five" a new one!
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
Scalia Renquist and Thomas are it for common sense - the rest of them should be impeached.
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).
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.