Posted on 03/02/2005 6:02:18 AM PST by beaureguard
Those who understand that America is not, was not designed to be, and should not become a democracy -- those who recognize the dangers of mob rule --will be disturbed by this. Most Americans, victims of government school misinformation and indoctrination, will not be.
Yesterday we had a ruling from the Supreme Court in the case of Christopher Simmons. You see, in 1993, Simmons was 17 and decided, along with his 15-year-old buddy, to kidnap Shirley Crook in her St. Louis home. Simmons and his pal must not have liked Shirley Crook too much, for they tied her up, threw her into a minivan and drove to a bridge over a river. There they covered her face in duct tape and threw her over the railing and into the water. She drowned. Christopher Simmons later bragged to his friends that they could get away with it because they were minors. Sadly, because of this ruling, they will get away with it.
The Supreme Court has now ruled that a person cannot be executed for a crime committed when that person was less than 18 years old. Cruel and unusual punishment, says the court. The opinion was written by liberal justice Anthony Kennedy ... and this ruling sends ice water through the veins of anyone who understands our Constitution and the role of our Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, you see, is expected to cite a Constitutional basis for its rulings. Not so in this case. Instead, Kennedy cites a "national consensus" and "international opinion." Boiled down, "national consensus" is just another way of saying "the will of the majority." So now it seems official. The Supreme Court will base its rulings on what is and what is not Constitutional based on the mood of the people; based on the whims of the mob. This is nothing less than the legitimization of the lynch mob. If' there's a "national consensus" that old so-and-so must hang, then hang he does, regardless of whether or not such niceties as the rule of law have been followed or Constitutional rights met. Perhaps the next step is for the Supremes to hire a polling firm to measure the mood of the people before they issue rulings on Constitutionality.
The reference to "international opinion." Maybe some guidance from the Supremes is needed at this point. At what point does international opinion trump the dictates and limitations of our Constitution? Should the "international opinion" standard be used by the Supreme Court to decide whether or not a president's foreign policy initiatives are legal? Maybe Ted Kennedy and John Kerry should have tried to get a Supreme Court ruling on the legality of Bush's actions in Iraq. Using the "international opinion" standard Bush's actions would almost certainly have been found to be unconstitutional.
Sadly, most of this will go unnoticed by the dumb masses. The vast majority of Americans will direct their attention to the current NASCAR standings, tonight's edition of Entertainment Tonight and whether or not there's enough brewski in the 'fridge for the weekend.
Boortz Ping!
If you want on or off the occasional Boortz ping, FRmail me and let me know.
They're in the can for crimes against property. He's there because he's a brutal murderous thug, and no matter how many Justices on the Supreme Court express their like for him, these other prisoners have rights.
Eventually their right to live undisturbed by the presence of a brutal murderous thug will run into his, and he's going to lose.
Way back in his death penalty phase, Howard Dean pointed to this situation as the one you really have to consider when you discuss capital punishment. He noted that when you leave people like this alive they kill again, or somebody else kills them, and not in the most humane way either.
That may have been Howie's last rational thought, but he was absolutely correct.
All of this proves, of course, that Justice Kennedy is a whacked out nutball extremist.
Well, Damn.
WOW wonder if this is whats happening today?
"...the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
-- Thomas Jefferson
She should be removed from our court as soon as possible.
I believe the year was 1932.....
As Scalia pointed out, we are one of the few countries in the world that has legalized abortion. Are we going to cite international law on that one too or are we just going to be selective about it?
Kennedy's opinion cited a supposed "national consensus", when there isn't one in the nation, and there isn't even one among the justices. The only opinions that matter are those of the five lawyers in robes, the only "consensus" THEIR consensus.
Well, well, well. It's official. We can hold a referendum on who gets to stay on the United States Supreme Court.
They just said so.
Of course, being socialist, the rules they make do not apply to them.
The fight over Justices is about a whole lot more than abortion. Indeed, I believe abortion is one of the less important things to consider when evaluating potential nominees.
Overturning Roe vs. Wade will not end abortion, but putting in place a judge who reasons like those above ("international opinion") could end our republic.
no judge has the right to nullify our Constitution.
fight back.
Isn't it beyond odd that freedom is becoming more infectious around the world in countries that want our way of life. Yet the men in black base their decisions on opinions of countries that don't want their way of life any longer.
I just ran across this thread. Here's my take on democracy:
tinyurl.com/4zstr
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.