DeLay's comment about the internet is moronic. Perhaps he should look into the usage of Lexis/Nexis and Westlaw. A huge percentage of legal research done today is done online.
I'm with Lugsoul on this one. No human, no matter how good their memory, should consider themselves infallible when dealing with caselaw and American law precedent. Having the internet, with tools like Lexis/Nexis and Westlaw, to refer to appropriate caselaw is invaluable. Is it simpler and less-timing consuming to search for a Shakespeare quote in a database, or page through all the plays on paper? Even searching the Bible can be made more accurate by relying on search engines.
What I was slightly confused about was whether DeLay was opposed to the use of the Internet itself - which seems rather Luddite - or the fact that Kennedy does "his own research." Should Kennedy not do his own research? Can he rely on the research of clerks and assistants, even if they themselves do it on the Internet?
It would have been nice if Justice Kennedy had used the internet to study precedent. If so, he might have found an opinion written 15 years before where it was decided that states COULD execute convicted murderers who committed the crime when they were under-age (16 - 17 years old.)
And having found that 15 year old decision, then Justice Kennedy should have been compelled to explain what law was passed that would cause the decision to be abrogated ... after all, the Justices are supposed to be compelled to "stare decisis" (Latin for "let the decision stand").
Of course, the embarrassment is that Justice Kennedy was overturning his own decision of 15 years before, based on "evolving standards" and laws in other countries.
At this point, we either are compelled to accept that we have a Constitution that means ONLY what 5 of 9 judges decide it means at that time (subject to change) ... or it is time for a revolution to replace Justices who think that they have more power than the Constitution intended. I would prefer the latter.
Mike