Travesty Time, Again. In its death-penalty decision, the Supreme Court hits a new low.

National Review ^ | Mar. 23, 2005 | Robert H. Bork

[Crackingham]

There are plenty of reasons to deplore Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court’s decision that a murderer under the age of 18 when he committed his crime cannot be given the death penalty. The Court majority once more exhibited for all to see that dazzling combination of lawlessness and moral presumption which increasingly characterizes its Bill of Rights jurisprudence.

The opinion starts unpromisingly, informing us that by “protecting even those convicted of heinous crimes, the Eighth Amendment reaffirms the duty of the government to respect the dignity of all persons.” Readers may wonder about the dignity of the victim. Christopher Simmons, then 17, discussed with two companions his desire to murder someone, saying they could “get away with it” because they were minors. He and a juvenile confederate broke into the house of Shirley Crook, covered her eyes and mouth, and bound her hands with duct tape. They drove her to a state park, walked her onto a bridge, tied her hands and feet together with electrical wire, completely covered her whole face with duct tape, and threw her into the Meramec River, where, helpless, she drowned. Simmons bragged about the killing to friends, telling them he had killed a woman “because the bitch seen my face.” Arrested, he confessed, and was sentenced to death.

[muawiyah]

The Supreme Court justices are in the habit of telling baldfaced lies. This is another one of them.

What we need to do is empty the courts and replace them.

[FormerACLUmember]

SCOTUS will execute an innocent woman tomorrow, I suspect, while letting known murderers go free. But hey, it is in the Constitution. Somewhere.

[claudiustg]

So we take the little dope-head to the same bridge, tie his hands and feet, wrap the duct tape around his stupid head and dump him into the river. That's about as "evolved" as this thing needs to be.