Scalia Slams Juvenile Death Penalty Ruling

newsday ^ | 3/14/05 | hope yen

[pissant]

WASHINGTON -- Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down the juvenile death penalty, calling it the latest example of politics on the court that has made judicial nominations an increasingly bitter process.

In a 35-minute speech Monday, Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court's 5-4 ruling March 1 to outlaw the juvenile death penalty based on "evolving notions of decency" was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of the five-member majority, he said.

"If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again," Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. "You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility."

"Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?" he said.

Scalia, who has been mentioned as a possible chief justice nominee should Chief Justice William Rehnquist retire, outlined his judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution according to its text, as understood at the time it was adopted.

[pissant]

Bush is right. We need more Scalia's and Thomases on the Supreme Court, and fast!

[goldstategop]

Its not a matter of replacing this or that judge. We need to get rid of the root and branch of judicial tyranny: Marbury V Madison. Otherwise the judicial legislating will continue.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[brivette]

Agreed. Let Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsberg and the other lefties wither on the judicial vine.

[oceanview]

true. But the problem is, Bush himself should be railing against this ruling. this was the perfect time to try and build public support for change in the judiciary - this decision was an easy one for the people to understand, use the bully pulpit and tell people that the DC sniper was let of the hook by the SCOTUS. Its a simple message that could sell. but the white house communcations team stinks.

[madprof98]

What is amazing is that anyone considers these views controversial.

[pissant]

a few more constitutionalists on the SC would go a long way towards ending that practice!

[oceanview]

the president elected in 2008 is going to be the one to get them - that's why we have to make sure its not Hillary. I don't think Bush is going to replace any justice other then Rehnquist.

[goldstategop]

Nope. Judges won't give up that power. We need to amend the Constitution or change the way courts hear cases to put an end to the specter of Marbury. Judicial legislating is impermissable whether it came in the last century from the Right or as is now the habit from the Left.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[digger48]

On C-span now, it's great!

[econ_grad]

It is all about priorities. Bush knows that a lot of the laws that he signed could also be ruled unconstitutional by the court. CFR, parts of the Patriot Act, maybe some day Medicare. I think he cares about his legacy.

[Reactionary]

"If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again,"

I think we could replace the word "flexibility" with "democracy."

[af_vet_1981]

We need to remove those five justices to preserve the Constitution. Impeachment should be common practice in today's America, followed by public shaming.

[af_vet_1981]

Nope. Judges won't give up that power. We need to amend the Constitution

That won't work. We need to make an example out of the judges. They must be impeached and removed from office in great shame.

[drt1]

Agree. This was clearly a case of the Court overstepping it's authorities and establishing an arbitrary test for DP eligibility. This message should been communicated out but the WH didn't utter a peep.

IMO the message would have had a broad reception. I haven't seen polling on the decision but I would imagine it would parallel that for the D in general - A solid majority against this artificial pass.

[pissant]

Public hangings are preferred.

[perfect stranger]

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."

— Chief Justice John Marshall

[glock rocks]

"Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?"

Yes, Jim, it's indeed time for a march on the SCOTUS and the Judiciary and the Senate.

[wagglebee]

I agree. Judicial review which the SCOTUS invented in their grab for power in Marbury v. Madison has been a hinderance to our Republic for two centuries.

[little jeremiah]

Ping to self for later pingout.

[oceanview]

of course, just keep saying that the court let the DC sniper off the hook - over and over again. people will respond to that simple message. Bush needs higher approval ratings to force the Dems hand on a wide variety of issues being blocked in the senate - this was an opportunity lost.