This case is most dangerous not because of the murderers it excuses but because of the precedent used to reach the opinion. Precedent that involves reference to international agreements and customs rather than State Laws that reflect the collective will of the people in the jurisdictions where the crimes were committed should be grounds for dismissal from the court for violation of the "Good Behavior" requirement. Mark my words, these "international" precedents will now continue to be used to constrain the rights of the American people until this court is brought to heel.
Congress should select one Judge for removal (I suggest Ginsberg or Souter but take your pick)and let the Liberal Democrats swizzle on that issue while that Judge is pilloried in an Impeachment hearing. Would be a lot more fun than watching them try to ramrod their will over the majority to prevent appointment of a Judicial nomination of an "Original Intent" nominee.
The oath of office for SCOTUS judges should also be modified.
I'd love to see, for example, the Sup Court impose gay marriage or civil unions (and the 'or civil unions' is important since most states would reject legal recognition of same-sex unions no matter what euphemism is used to describe them), and then have a defiant President and Congress publicly slam the decision as being w/o basis in the Constitution, and then proclaim their intention to ignore the decision and refuse to enforce it.
If I thought for a second that Bush or the Senate would do this, then I'd root for such a SCOTUS decision (I'd give the House a 50/50 chance).
It would be great, as it would focus the public on the Courts like nothing else ever has. It would allow the GOP/Right, if they were willing, to make the case that these justices were abusing their power by imposing their won leftwing, elitist values on the entire nation, and that the the same mindset that leads one to impose gay marriage is the same that makes impossible even the most reasonable restrictions on abortion, and that twists the Establishment Clause so as to give themselves the power to ban public nativity scenes or prayers before a highschool football game.
I'm confident that we could win this battle for the public, despite inevitable and vigorous mainstream media campaigning for the concept of judicial rule.
Really, what is the worst that could happen? The Sup Court cannot enforce its decisions w/o the other two branches. If the President assured the states that they could ignore the decision and keep handling the matter for themselves, what could happen?
It seems the only way the decision could ever be enforced would be if some future President decided to enforce it, but by then the notion of judicial supremacy would be shattered.
Impeachment, nullification, interposition, and the use of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution all need to be considered.
We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.
I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny. The nebulous references to "growing national consensus" and citations of "international law" are just too much to countenance. What does it take to make 5 of these justices cognizant of the fact that their authority to preside originates in the US CONSTITUTION?
When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?
To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.
Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful. Congress can and should impeach federal judges for blatently unconstitutional rulings that manufacture law.
Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.