Right, based on your own morality. Why argue an obvious truth?
Incorrect. The SCOTUS has the legitimate power to determine when a punishment is cruel and unusual.
Your opinion. TO me it is obviously the wrong opinion but you're entitled to it.
Some things they legislate concern morality, other things do not. In any case, they don't define morality, they make laws.
All things they legislate have a moral component. That is simply truth. Laws define the morality of the body making them. This again is simple truth.
Incorrect. But I will admit they make lots of immoral laws.
Not incorrect. All laws have a moral component. If not, it should be quite simple for you to name a few that don't. I wouldn't rack my brain though because my staement is correct. That doesn't mean that every law is perfect or moral, just that the body making them bases their decisions on their own morality. Again, simple truth.
Which of course has nothing whatsoever to do with deciding what is moral.
You're not offering an argument, you are simply making claims that are not true.
If you like the idea that politicians define morality, you will love it when Hillary is back in charge.
Blah, blah, blah.
Hitler was elected, he didn't get to define morality.
More blah.
Blah, Blah when you have no answer? LOL
You are entitled to be incorrect as well. Your contention is that the SCOTUS does not have the legitimate power to define cruel and unusual punishment as laid out in the Constitution?
AND YOUR "SIMPLE TRUTHS" ARE YOU OPINIONS, NOT TRUTH.
If not, it should be quite simple for you to name a few that don't.
It's a law that I must sink my fence posts on my own property 48 inches deep, what is the moral componant of that?
You're not offering an argument, you are simply making claims that are not true. Sound familar?