Thursday, March 03, 2005

The Supreme Court Strikes Again...

As most of you probably know by now, the Supreme Court has decided that there will no longer be a 'death penalty option' for convicted murderers that are under 18 years old. (source)

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who upheld the decision that children under 18 could be executed in 1989, was the majority opinion. In his statements he all but admitted that this was not a decision based on the Constitutionality of the law, but on world opinion. Justice Scalia rightfully called Kennedy on this notion and pointed out that America is one of only three countries that offers 'abortion on demand’ --so because of that should we overturn Roe V. Wade. (A Must Read: Scalia's dissent).

Mark Levin (Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington) also made an excellent observation... His argument: The left would argue that a 13 year old girl is old enough to terminate a pregnancy without parental notification --yet a 17 year old that planned, plotted and brutally murdered someone (or multiple people) was not capable of reasoning... "When justices seize authority from the other branches of the federal government, as well as state and local governments, under the rubric of judicial review, that's tyranny." ~Mark Levin (source)

This case was brought in front of the Supreme Court by Christopher Simmons who was sentenced to death (Roper v. Simmons). His offense?

"Christopher Simmons – who was just 17 years old at the time of his offense – had received a May 1, 2002 execution date in Missouri. Christopher was convicted of murdering Shirley Crook. Her body was found in the Meramec River in St. Louis County on September 9, 1993. She had been tied with electric cable, leather straps and duct tape, had bruises on her body and fractured ribs. The medical examiner determined the cause of her death was drowning." (source)
Shirley Crook had caught Simmons in the process of robbing her house. He beat her, bound her, transported her to a bridge and threw her over ALIVE...

A jury found him guilty. A jury gave him the death penalty (and juries don't like to give the death penalty). All appeals upheld that death penalty and the Missouri Supreme Court also upheld the death penalty. In 1989 Justices found no constitutional barrier to juveniles receiving the death penalty.

This post is not really about what I think of juveniles receiving the death penalty...this is about pointing out the glaringly obvious fact that the Supreme Court seems to have become a court of opinion and not of law. This is not what the founding fathers had in mind at its inception. There has to be a stronger basis for a decision than 'the rest of the world agrees'...and if that is now the standard we are using --Roe V. Wade needs to go... and not just the laws that the left happens to dislike...

"We now have five justices on the Supreme Court who are perfectly content to rely on foreign law, and public opinion in foreign countries, when ruling on the constitutionality of state laws they don't like. Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Roper v. Simmons, where the Court struck down the laws of 18 states that allow for the execution of minors who have murdered in cold blood, is an absolute travesty. Overruling its 1989 decision that found no 8th amendment prohibition to a state's applying capital punishment to minors, Kennedy et al. now find a new "national consensus" against applying the death penalty to anyone under the age of 18 is "cruel and unusual punishment." (Move over Gallup!) The justices cite foreign opinion and practices to confirm their conclusion, which effectively usurps the will of the people. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissent wonders why the Court cites foreign law only in cases where foreign law agrees with a desired outcome. Why not for abortion? Why not for Establishment Clause cases? Scalia's dissent is must-reading for all Americans." ~ Laura Ingraham (source)

(Read Big & Mean's Solution)

No comments: