[fr_freak]

Far be it from me to pee on anyones Post Toasties, but...did nobody bother to read the decision?

Let me begin by saying, no, I didn't read the decision. I did, however, read Schlafly's opinion, and I am convinced that you misread or misinterpreted it. Here is the crucial point she is making:

Five activist justices (not even nine) just imposed their personal social preference on every American voter, state legislator, congressman, and juror. Adding insult to injury, the supremacist five used foreign laws, "international opinion," and even an unratified treaty to rationalize overturning more than 200 years of American law and history.

You'll notice that her accusation is not that the justices used foreign law to make their decision, but that they inserted their own personal bias into the interpretation. The key idea here is that there is no Constitutional basis for declaring that executing juveniles is illegal nationwide - the justices simply decided that they would invent such a Constitutional prohibition.

Now, the second half of Schlafly's accusation is that the justices used foreign law, unratified treaties, and non-American opinion to "rationalize" their decision, meaning that the justices cited American precedents in their decision (despite the fact that at least an equal number of American precedents could have been used to justify the exact opposite opinion) but then called upon these foreign influences to add weight and reason to their logic. Put simply, if American legal precedent were enough to justify this decision, there would be no need to cite foreign reasoning also. Regardless of the need, however, using foreign opinion and law even solely as reinforcement is grossly inappropriate in an American courtroom.

Now, do you understand the outrage yet?

[BikerNYC]

...but that they inserted their own personal bias into the interpretation.

Every judge does that in every decision. As human beings, it's impossible not to.

[Non-Sequitur]

Now, do you understand the outrage yet?

No, because, once again, I actually read the decision. And what everyone is ignoring the fact that in their ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court that executing Simmons was cruel and unusual. How can the Supreme Court be accused of making laws when it is upholding a lower court ruling? Most states in this country (60%)have already determined that offenders under 18 should not be executed. We hold those under 18 to a different standard from adults. They cannot vote, drink, serve on juries, enlist in the miltiary without parental approval, or get married in most states without approval. Yet Missouri used the same set of standards that they use to sentence adults to death to sentence those under 18. The court ruled that such a double standard did fall under the category of cruel and unusual. The court acknowledged that there were sure to be some criminals under 18 aware enough to warrant the death penalty, but the laws would have to be crafted to do a better job of identifying those criminals were the death penalty is truly justified. Current laws don't do that.

All of which you would know had you or Ms. Schlafly read the decision.