[hobbes1]

Monday's ruling concerned instances in which juries determined defendants' guilt or innocence and judges alone decided their punishment. The court held that such a sentence imposed by a judge violates a defendant's constitutional right to a trial by jury.

Hmmmm...Re-affirming Trial By Jury is now a leftist bent?

Not to mention the fact that reigning in the o'erweening power of the State, is decidedly a conservative thing...No wonder you guys have so much trouble with Bush....

[Lazamataz]

Hmmmm...Re-affirming Trial By Jury is now a leftist bent?

Please re-read: "Monday's ruling concerned instances in which juries determined defendants' guilt or innocence and judges alone decided their punishment."

They got a Trial By Jury. There are states, and circumstances in those states -- including a defendant agreeing to it -- that allow a judge to impose punishment. It must meet the 'cruel and unusual' test.

If you don't like that, change the law in those states. This is a narrowing of the application of the death penalty. I expect the SCOTUS to revoke the application of the death penalty, with the current trends.

Your personality-based implication vis-a-vis my feelings about George W. Bush has been ignored and omitted.

[chachacha]

Hmmmm...Re-affirming Trial By Jury is now a leftist bent?

No, I think you meant to say that, the Jury who left your hero O.J.Simpson loose is re-affirming the leftist Jury bend.

[discostu]

This'l be a fun thread to watch, you'll be able to see the people that read the article and those that just read the headline. From a conservative point of view the headline is pretty damning, if you actually read enough of the article to get to the actual decision and its basis this is a solid SCOTUS decision. IMHO anything that takes power away from activist judges = good.

[Zon]

What is the keystone of a jury? That it is impartial.

The Supreme Court, by ruling that the jury must define the sentence to be handed down is in alignment with the impartial jury as stated in the Sixth Amendment. To remain consistent the Supreme Court needs to acknowledge that an impartial jury is to judge the facts of the case as well as judge the law as it applies to the case.

For when the Supreme Court acknowledges the fact as supported by the Sixth Amendment that the jury is to judge how the law is to be applied in the life or death of a person, surely the jury must be judging how the law applies to the person.

When a judge fails to inform the jury that it is to be impartial and judge both the facts and the law as it applies to the case is subverting honest justice. Honest justice cannot be attained void of an impartial jury and instead upholds political agenda "justice".

It makes me wonder why they understand some of the Constitution but not other parts.

Selective omission to support political ends/agendas.

IMHO anything that takes power away from activist judges = good.

Especially good at doing that is the impartial jury. That is why judges in 1893 stopped routinely telling the jury that they were to judge both the facts and the law as it applies to that case.