--that 17 year old juveniles should not be put to death.
What affect does the decision of the SCOTUS have on our country?
You remember--the one in which they decided, 5-4, that 17 year olds should not be put to death?
I fear the point has been completely lost in the worry over a few maniacal "juveniles" who, committing crimes at the tender age of 17 years and 364 days, are to be treated as juveniles, even though they're 18, when caught!
Well, I disagree, but that's not the point I wish to make here!
I believe the recent decision of the SC is of such importance, that we may one day, like most Monday morning QB's, point to that decision as the point at which our country began it's slide into a degenerate cesspool of rulings based purely on "what the majority" think.
I'd like to see a discussion on the main point--
The point of the article is (and, I believe, is the most important!) that the SC has found a way to circumvent the Constitution ENTIRELY!!
The subject of the USSC has become a hot potato recently, due to the latest decision and the process used to arrive at the decision!
The reason given for the revocation of the death penalty for minors is an illegal one, IMO!. In actuality, the demise of the death penalty would have been more easily accepted if the court had simply quoted the Constitution as the reason for deciding against “cruel and unusual punishment”, but NOOO! They had to cite “National and International Majority Opinion” as their reason for their reversal!
Their decision is wrong for a couple of reasons:
#1. They had no proof of "National" opinion!
#2. They considered "International" opinion, of which there is also no proof, taking into account all countrys!
Opinion is not something that should be taken into account when rendering decisions, since the "popular opinion", or the majority opinion of anything should not be the basis for law!
From the Federalist Patriot:
THE PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE
Top of the fold -- Judicial Supremacists and the Despotic Branch...
The U.S. Constitution suffered some serious setbacks this week. The future of liberty and the rule of law suffered likewise.
It's bad enough that Democrat obstructionists are once again denying President George Bush's federal-bench nominees their constitutionally prescribed up-or-down vote by the full Senate. In a fine example of why we need those nominees on the bench, Leftists on the Supreme Court are, again, "interpreting" the so-called "living Constitution" as a method of altering that venerable document by judicial diktat.
Worse yet, these Left-judiciary Supremacists -- Justice Anthony Kennedy and Court Jesters Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens -- cited "national consensus" as a factor in Tuesday's Roper v. Simmons ruling. In other words, they disregarded the Constitution's prescription for federalism and republican government in the name of unmitigated democracy. Which is to say, while riding roughshod over the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as they overturned the laws of 19 states, the Supremes blithely pushed the nation one step closer toward what everyone since Plato has described as governance in its most degenerative form.
Writing for the majority, Kennedy claimed that Americans had reached a "national consensus" against capital punishment for "children," citing as evidence that only 20 states allow a 17-year-old to be sentenced to death. Of course, Kennedy's logic is utterly at odds with decisions such as Roe v. Wade. In that 1973 decision, the Supremes serendipitously discovered a right to privacy that allowed for the aborting of children, despite the fact that all 50 states had laws at the time either prohibiting or tightly regulating abortion. So we must ask you, Justice Kennedy -- what's all this rubbish about a "national consensus?"
You recall, of course, that in a recent case, the Supremacists discovered a clause in the Constitution specifically stating that a 14-year-old is mature enough to abort the life of her child without parental consent. Now, in Roper v. Simmons, they've found a contradictory clause, which avers that a 17-year-old is not mature enough to be held accountable for capital murder.
Adding grievous insult to this "national consensus" injury, Kennedy cited "international consensus" noting "the overwhelming weight of international opinion" as a factor in the Court's decision. Kennedy cited the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child when writing, "The United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty." Here, his message was all too clear: The High Court is building a tradition of referring "to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation" of the U.S. Constitution.
This fact, alone, should be reason enough for impeachment proceedings!
Sadly, such citing of international standards and conventions seems to be the latest fashion among the Supremacists.
In 2003, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer upheld an affirmative-action policy at the University of Michigan, noting an international treaty endorsing race-based advancement for minorities. Stevens, for his part, cited international law in overturning another capital case: "Within the world community, the...death penalty...is overwhelmingly disapproved." Furthermore, in Lawrence v. Texas, Kennedy wrote that the European Court of Human Rights has affirmed the "rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct."
Am I the only one who seems to be incensed by these illegal rulings?
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said recently, "I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly...on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues." W'OT?
Justice Breyer added, "We see all the time, Justice O'Connor and I, and the others, how the world really -- it's trite but it's true -- is growing together. The challenge [will be] whether our Constitution...fits into the governing documents of other nations."
"How our Constitution fits?"
Justice Antonin Scalia, a dependable constitutional constructionist, protested on behalf of the dissenters that capital punishment should, rightly in accordance with constitutional federalism, be determined by individual states. "Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent. ... To invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, is not reasoned decision-making, but sophistry." Just so.
Perhaps Justice Scalia recalls this admonition from Founder George Washington: "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence...the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government."
