If your point is that Kennedy took careful steps to write words that claim he is not citing foreign law as the final authority you are correct and I am not disputing that he used those words. I am disputing that those words make sense and that he even meant them.
If he doesn't find it binding why is it ever mentioned in the opinion? This case exists to form another precedent to allow International Law to become more binding in future Supreme Court opinions. Think of the precedents that have already been set and how the groundwork was set.
If in fact 32 States give him a sufficiently adequate reason to rule as he did there is no reason to ever mention any foreign law. The Constitution did not set up a democracy among States for the Supreme Court to rely on. If he is ruling that there is a critical number of States that believe something that can be Constitutionally binding, the only number he could find in the Constitution to rule that way would be the 75% to ratify an Amendment. 32 only gives you 64%. 64% is even below two thirds (the only other super-majority number mentioned anywhere in the Constitution) so he is ruling that a simple majority of States is "controlling" if you remove the foreign law.
There is no basis in the Constitution to rule the way he did. It is a betrayal of his oath of office. Impeach him and ask him under what circumstances would the laws of any number of foreign countries give you legal weight to overturn the laws of a single State in this country. Continue this line of questioning and he will either say the foreign law is binding or he will admit that there exists no reason in the known universe to cite foreign law in domestic cases other than to impose the personal will of the court on the rest of America which is exactly what this opinion did.
Again, I say. Read the decision.
If there is no basis on the Constitution to rule the way he did, then it is equally true that there is no basis in the Constitution for limiting the death penalty for any age. Why not also impeach the majority justices in the 1988 case of Thompson v Oklahoma, which said executing those under 16 was cruel and unusual? Should we impeach the majority justices in Penry v Lynaugh, which ruled that executing the retarded was cruel and unusual? There have been any number of cases where children under 10 killed playmates. Should they be subject to captial punishment? Where would you draw the line? And if you agree with Thompson, but disagree with Roper then why?
Impeach him and ask him under what circumstances would the laws of any number of foreign countries give you legal weight to overturn the laws of a single State in this country.
In the first place, the court upheld the state of Missouri in the Roper decision. They held that the execution was unconstitutional. In the second place, Kennedy did not use the laws of a foreign country as the basis for his decision. The court cited at least a dozen prior Supreme Court and lower court decisions as precedent, referenced a number of U.S. medical studies in support, and only mentioned foreign sources at the end, and almost in passing.
Continue this line of questioning and he will either say the foreign law is binding or he will admit that there exists no reason in the known universe to cite foreign law in domestic cases other than to impose the personal will of the court on the rest of America which is exactly what this opinion did.
Nonsense.