Supreme Court's illegal ruling (on cap punishment) should TRIGGER THE NUCLEAR OPTION

SF Chronicle ^ | Mar 2 05 | churchillbuff

[churchillbuff]

You telling me, Justice Kennedy, that they didn't execute juvenile murderers in the time when the Constitution was enacted? I don't belive it. (Actually Kennedy doesn't even ask that question -- he doesn't care what the people who wrote the constitution believed).

What this travesty of a decision shows is that the NUCLEAR OPTION is ESSENTIAL to get us some decent judges on federal courts. If the Republican senators are afraid of the Democrats, then it's time for them to be made even MORE AFRAID of the REPUBLICAN GRASS ROOTS!! MAYBE A MARCH ON WASHINGTON, TARGETING OUR OWN REPBULICAN SENATORS AND DEMANDING THAT THEY GROW SPINES?

[pierrem15]

Then perhaps you (and Justice Kennedy) should allow the rest of us the opportunity to consent to a chnage in the laws through the process of regular elections.

The state affected should simply tell the SCOTUS to go f--- itself, and point out that no one in that state ever expressed their consent (openly or implicitly) to this nonsense through the law or a constitutional amendment.

Then let's see if Bush orders the armed forces to enforce the decision.

[libertyman]

Probably not, it depends on the judge...but whether it gets 67 Senate votes or not, it might scare the pants off a few judges, & it'll get their name out in a negativ manner. That in itself might have a positive benefit in the long run.

[Kramster]

What ever happened to "if you're old enough to do the crime...you're old enough to do the time"? If a "kid" commits an adult crime, then they have already surrendered any claim to be a "child".

You're right. This idiotic ruling just gave all these little 'punk gang-bangers' the green-light to continue with their drive-bys' now that they know they won't get the death penalty.

[donmeaker]

I think that I as a citizen, with my limited resources, may have to use extreme force to protect me or my family. If I do that, due to the imprecision associated of that condition, the individual may die, though I didn't want to kill him, I wanted only to stop him.

The state, after they have a felon or murderer in jail, does not need to take extreme measures to keep the perp in jail. Weld the bars shut, and feed him "meat-food-loaf" until he dies, then fill the cell with concrete. He isn't getting out.

Having said that, overturning US law based on anything international except a treaty ratified by the Senate is WRONG.

[DMZFrank]

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.