Justice Kennedy strikes down the DP for child rapists
By Feddie Posted in Death Penalty | Law — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As someone who opposes the death penalty in all instances, and who also believes that death is too good for any rapist, I obviously favor the outcome in this case. That having been said, Justice Kennedy's "reasoning," as usual, is beyond pathetic. The Court's opinion today in Kennedy v. Louisiana, as in Roper v. Simmons, is a constitutional abomination. In an nutshell, there is simply no basis in the Constitution's text, history, or structure for the Court's decision (which rests instead on the Court's own "independent judgment" and "evolving standards of decency"). It is nothing less than rule by judicial fiat.
At some point, the American people are going to have to decide whether they wish to be ruled by nine (and in many cases five) unelected philosopher kings, or whether they would rather have the most contentious issues of public policy we face as a people hashed out in the legislative arena (as was envisioned by our founders/framers).
I, for one, favor the latter.
« Gov. Bobby Jindal Signs Bill to Chemically Castrate Sex Offenders — Comments (51) | Take This Evolving National Consensus And Shove It — Comments (18) »
Justice Kennedy strikes down the DP for child rapists 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
that people on different sides of the issue should be able to agree that bad legal precedent is bad legal precedent.
Now also found at The Minority Report
I've always had a problem with the fact that the "checks and balances" of the federal government don't include any limits on the powers of the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench. Over the last 200 years, almost every instance in which the SCOTUS has imposed its views on "social justice" rather than addressing the law, has turned out to be a disaster (and, yes, I'm lumping in the decisions that eventually led to the Civil War).
I'm starting to think that there needs to be some sort of mechanism by which decisions that are simply not based in the law can taken to the people and overturned (or upheld) via plebiscite. Anyone else have any ideas along this line?
____________________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
branch of government. the problem is that the congress allows them to get away with usurping their power. They could absolutely control the courts anytime they wished. They can rule whole classes of law to be out of the purview of the court. They can even control the size of the supreme court.
They just choose not to. So they would also not support an amendment.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
The methods:
(1) Article 3 Section 2 gives Congress the power to put constraints on the areas the courts have jurisdiction over. In the recent habeas corpus usurpance, the Congress DID put limits on the supreme court, using language straight out of the Constitution. The supreme court ignored it. Which leads to the second method....
(2) Impeachment and subsequent removal.
There should be no need for further amendments.
Impeach the 5 usurpers
Another reason I'm addicted to Redstate. I didn't know that Congress had the power to limit the Supreme court.
So, it's really more a matter of the other two branches growing a spine?
____________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
If by skimming my tagline you might surmise that we are of a mind on this court -- well, my friend, you'd be right.
Impeach the 5 usurpers