U.S. Supreme Court further erodes democracy
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Roper v. Simmons holding that the death penalty for murderers who commit their crimes under the age of 18 is "cruel and unusual punishment" and therefore prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Say what you will about the policy of capital punishment for minors (though this particular minor bragged to his friends and asked for help killing an innocent woman on the grounds that they would get away with it because they were minors) but the rationale for the decision embodies everything that is wrong - and I predict will be remedied in one or more ways I'll share later - with modern liberal constitutional interpretation. Or should that be "interpretation."
As usual, Scalia's dissent absolutely gets it right. It is worth the full read because it addresses nearly all the obviously wrong modern liberal trends in Constitutional "interpretation" - reliance on selective "International Law," reliance on selective "experts," judges substituting their own moral judgments for those of the people, etc.
For now I'll give you just one quote from the dissent which pretty much encapsulates why liberals are scumbags:
"As petitioner points out, the American Psychological Association (APA), which claims in this case that scientific evidence shows persons under 18 lack the ability to take moral responsibility for their decisions, has previously taken precisely the opposite position before this very Court. In its brief in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990), the APA found a “rich body of research” showing that juveniles are mature enough to decide whether to obtain an abortion without parental involvement."
Read Scalia's dissent and you will have a basic understanding of all that is wrong with lefty judges and why the fight on judicial nominees is the most crucial fight Bush can wage in his final term. Every time Justice Kennedy authors one of these weak excuses for constitutional law, I always think that had it not been for Arlen Specter and the Dems "Borking" Bork, we wouldn't have to put up with this nonsense.
As usual, Scalia's dissent absolutely gets it right. It is worth the full read because it addresses nearly all the obviously wrong modern liberal trends in Constitutional "interpretation" - reliance on selective "International Law," reliance on selective "experts," judges substituting their own moral judgments for those of the people, etc.
For now I'll give you just one quote from the dissent which pretty much encapsulates why liberals are scumbags:
"As petitioner points out, the American Psychological Association (APA), which claims in this case that scientific evidence shows persons under 18 lack the ability to take moral responsibility for their decisions, has previously taken precisely the opposite position before this very Court. In its brief in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990), the APA found a “rich body of research” showing that juveniles are mature enough to decide whether to obtain an abortion without parental involvement."
Read Scalia's dissent and you will have a basic understanding of all that is wrong with lefty judges and why the fight on judicial nominees is the most crucial fight Bush can wage in his final term. Every time Justice Kennedy authors one of these weak excuses for constitutional law, I always think that had it not been for Arlen Specter and the Dems "Borking" Bork, we wouldn't have to put up with this nonsense.
posted by Ben at 7:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home