Not too long ago, Missouri's death row was being emptied into the execution chamber. The state trailed only Texas and Virginia in the number of convicted murderers put to death.
Today, Missouri's death row is being gradually emptied by the courts.
The story is told of a Chinese law professor, who was listening to a British lawyer explain that Britons were so enlightened, they believed it was better that ninety-nine guilty men go free than that one innocent man be executed. The Chinese professor thought for a second and asked, "Better for whom?"
In the 1998 National Election Study (NES), 75% of Americans favored the death penalty, 56% strongly. By contrast, “Catholic traditionalists” supported the death penalty at a far lower rate; only 65% favored it, and 24% “strongly opposed” it. “Traditionalists” were defined as respondents who believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and who attend church regularly. That level of support is lower than for any major group in the survey except African-Americans (58% support, 25% strongly opposed).
Convicted serial killer Michael Ross is set to be the first Connecticut death row inmate to be executed since 1960.
Although Ross has accepted his fate and refuses any court challenges that could delay his Jan. 26 lethal injection, death-row opponents are fighting to keep him alive.
"When a juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the state can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the state cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity," Kennedy quoted from the majority ruling.
 In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people's representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since "[t]he judiciary ... ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, "bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." Id.,at 471. Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years--not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to "the evolving standards of decency," ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted), of our national society. It then finds, on the flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people's laws barely 15 years ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: "[I]n the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment." Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. 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.
Adding insult to injury, the Court doesn't even deny its staggering presumptuousness. In the words of the ever-disappointing Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, "To implement this framework we have established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of referring to 'the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society' to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual."
 How much more explicit could the Court be in affirming the shifting, baseless standards of moral relativism? Quite a far cry, is it not, from a Constitutional and legal system grounded in the absolute standards emanating from the Judeo-Christian ethic?
You may believe that this ruling gives teens a license to kill, or you may consider it to be a sensible protection for our innocent children. Either opinion is defendable, and immaterial. The important thing -- and the frightening thing -- about the ruling is that it continues the court’s march toward a “living Constitution” and away from original intent.
Forget the governors and legislatures of 50 states. Forget voters. And forget that for 214 years no Supreme Court ever claimed that the 8th Amendment barred the execution of cold-blooded killers who happen to be less than 18 years of age.
The five-person, un-elected tribunal that now runs our Republic has spoken.
Most alarmingly, these tribunes are not claiming to have discovered something in the Constitution that went unnoticed for two centuries. They are claiming the Constitution itself has changed in the last 16 years--not because state legislatures ratified an amendment, but because some justices have changed their personal perceptions of what the Constitution ought to mean.
The Democrats' standard complaint is that nominees are out of the jurisprudential ``mainstream.'' If Kennedy represents the mainstream, it is time to change the shape of the river. His opinion is an intellectual train wreck, but useful as a timely warning about what happens when judicial offices are filled with injudicious people. Â
Nice Views, noneof which are your own...but it is obvious that you would prefer the death penalty to be imposed on juveniles. On children .
And you base this absurd allegation on what?
And whose opinion (on the exact same matter), is the following?
"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people, may oftenbe a factor in the crime. See Brief for Human Rights Committee of the Bar of England and Wales et al. as Amici Curiae 10-11... The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmationfor our own conclusions."
Got any idea?
KennedyÂ
wrote that bullshit. What is your point?
All Kennedy is saying is that other courts in other countries have reached similar decisions.
The problem is that he lied. The majority did base its decision on what other countries did. He is supposed to uphold the Constitution not force this country to follow the "morals" of other countries.
That made little to no sense, whatsoever. The Courts, are 1 of three branches of Government. How on earth can you say that they are NOT independent from the other two?
I didn't say that it was. Man you are DUMB!
I can't WAIT for the day when the S.C. TELLS the Congress to enact such & such a Law, now. Roe told all the states that banned abortion that they had to repeal their laws. And if a state didn't have any law on the subject, which I don't think was the case,  they certainly did after the decision.  Â
You certainly are the dimmest of wits.
I believe that if Congress or a state legislature (representing the people) decides that a court has ruled wrongly, they can pass legislation that effectively overrides that court. The courts are not perfectly independent. Nor were they meant to be, since they don't directly represent voters. They are meant to rule according to law, not make law.
In Massachusetts, the state Supreme Court not only ignored the state law but improperly instructed the legislature to create and pass a law allowing same-sex marriages.
I believe that if Congress or a state legislature (representing the people) decides that a court has ruled wrongly, they can pass legislation that effectively overrides that court. They can? So all it takes is a state to pass a law outlawing abortion? Or to execute certain individuals that committed murder when they were sixteen? Or to provide for school prayer? The courts are not perfectly independent. They are totally independent that is how you got the overturning of abortion laws, school prayer and the death penalty. The courts have even declared independence from the Constitution. Nor were they meant to be, since they don't directly represent voters. They are meant to rule according to law, not make law. They don't rule based on the constitution. They rule often on what they feel is right.
I still fail to see what "Law" they have ever made, but if someone can point me to even ONE example of the Court putting a Law on the Books, I would be grateful.
That is because you are willfully ignorant Read Roe v. Wade.
 because of their decisions as final-arbiters of our Constitution, some states have made laws? Well, that is the way it is supposedto work.
You are totally ignorant of how it works, aren't you? States cannot pass laws outlawing abortion or providing for school prayer.
Now if Alabama wants to pass some legislation / change to their constitution ,  making it lawful to do that sort of thing, in Alabama, I am all for it, because that too would be brought before our Activist Judges on the S.C., and rejected as unconstitutional.
This statement contradicts your paragraph above. Again, as it is supposed to work in this country.
No that isn't how it supposed to work. The courts are supposed to be bound by the Constitution but they have declared independence.
This is a non-issue, being made into an issue only because extremists have the opportunity to put such ridiculous ideas on the Web, and try to find some followers, lies or not. It is a huge issue and anyone that has a grasp of what is going on by understanding how government is supposed to work understands that.
BUT... let's say for the sake of argument, that there ARE activist Judges...? OK...Fine.
Which decisions has our Supreme Court made within say the last 50 years, that are NOT"activist"?
You contradict your self with nearly every word you write.
fold, as usual you make no sense. I answered your question. I am sorry that I just didn't put it in words that you were able to comprehend. But in the future I'll try. It may help in my quest to communicate with my two year old!
Not too long ago, Missouri's death row was being emptied into the execution chamber. The state trailed only Texas and Virginia in the number of convicted murderers put to death.
Today, Missouri's death row is being gradually emptied by the courts.
 http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2004/12/11/news_state/1211040006.txt
Liberal judicial activism just keeps rolling along.
of course, bodine's religion tells us that we are all guilty andthat we can all be forgiven.
Convicted serial killer Michael Ross is set to be the first Connecticut death row inmate to be executed since 1960.
Although Ross has accepted his fate and refuses any court challenges that could delay his Jan. 26 lethal injection, death-row opponents are fighting to keep him alive.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141583,00.html
"When a juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the state can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the state cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity," Kennedy quoted from the majority ruling.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149080,00.html
Asinine.
yeah, let's kill kids
Â
 In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people's representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since "[t]he judiciary ... ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, "bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." Id.,at 471. Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years--not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has
changed. The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to "the evolving standards of decency," ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted), of our national society. It then finds, on the flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people's laws barely 15 years ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: "[I]n the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment." Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. 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.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-633#dissent2
Adding insult to injury, the Court doesn't even deny its staggering presumptuousness. In the words of the ever-disappointing Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, "To implement this framework we have established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of referring to 'the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society' to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual."
 How much more explicit could the Court be in affirming the shifting, baseless standards of moral relativism? Quite a far cry, is it not, from a Constitutional and legal system grounded in the absolute standards emanating from the Judeo-Christian ethic?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20050304.shtml
You may believe that this ruling gives teens a license to kill, or you may consider it to be a sensible protection for our innocent children. Either opinion is defendable, and immaterial. The important thing -- and the frightening thing -- about the ruling is that it continues the court’s march toward a “living Constitution” and away from original intent.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richtucker/rt20050304.shtml
Forget the governors and legislatures of 50 states. Forget voters. And forget that for 214 years no Supreme Court ever claimed that the 8th Amendment barred the execution of cold-blooded killers who happen to be less than 18 years of age.
The five-person, un-elected tribunal that now runs our Republic has spoken.
Most alarmingly, these tribunes are not claiming to have discovered something in the Constitution that went unnoticed for two centuries. They are claiming the Constitution itself has changed in the last 16 years--not because state legislatures ratified an amendment, but because some justices have changed their personal perceptions of what the Constitution ought to mean.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6737
The Democrats' standard complaint is that nominees are out of the jurisprudential ``mainstream.'' If Kennedy represents the mainstream, it is time to change the shape of the river. His opinion is an intellectual train wreck, but useful as a timely warning about what happens when judicial offices are filled with injudicious people. Â
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20050307.shtml
Nice Views, noneof which are your own...but it is obvious that you would prefer the death penalty to be imposed on juveniles. On
children
.
And you base this absurd allegation on what?
And whose opinion (on the exact same matter), is the following?
"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people, may oftenbe a factor in the crime. See Brief for Human Rights Committee of the Bar of England and Wales et al. as Amici Curiae 10-11...
The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmationfor our own conclusions."
Got any idea?
KennedyÂ
wrote that bullshit. What is your point?
"The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions."
This is the line that people are throwing out as an example of the Supreme Court using courts of other countries as a basis for their decision?
All Kennedy is saying is that other courts in other countries have reached similar decisions.
So what's the problem?
All Kennedy is saying is that other courts in other countries have reached similar decisions.
The problem is that he lied. The majority did base its decision on what other countries did. He is supposed to uphold the Constitution not force this country to follow the "morals" of other countries.
"The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions."
Like I said he lied. It controlled his vote.
How do you know?
watch and learn, fold:
http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?segID=5491&schedID=340
Â
In case you don't, let me repeat that... T
he Courts, are supposedto be independent, you fucking dope.
The Courts are NOT supposed to be independent from the Constitution, Jackass! But most of them certainly think they are.
That made little to no sense, whatsoever. The Courts, are 1 of three branches of Government. How on earth can you say that they are NOT independent from the other two?
I didn't say that it was. Man you are DUMB!
I can't WAIT for the day when the S.C. TELLS the Congress to enact such & such a Law, now.Â
Roe told all the states that banned abortion that they had to repeal their laws. And if a state didn't have any law on the subject, which I don't think was the case,  they certainly did after the decision.
 Â
You certainly are the dimmest of wits.
I believe that if Congress or a state legislature (representing the people) decides that a court has ruled wrongly, they can pass legislation that effectively overrides that court. The courts are not perfectly independent. Nor were they meant to be, since they don't directly represent voters. They are meant to rule according to law, not make law.
Â
The Oregon judge properly followed the state law.
In Massachusetts, the state Supreme Court not only ignored the state law but improperly instructed the legislature to create and pass a law allowing same-sex marriages.
I believe that if Congress or a state legislature (representing the people) decides that a court has ruled wrongly, they can pass legislation that effectively overrides that court. They can? So all it takes is a state to pass a law outlawing abortion? Or to execute certain individuals that committed murder when they were sixteen? Or to provide for school prayer? The courts are not perfectly independent. They are totally independent that is how you got the overturning of abortion laws, school prayer and the death penalty. The courts have even declared independence from the Constitution. Nor were they meant to be, since they don't directly represent voters. They are meant to rule according to law, not make law. They don't rule based on the constitution. They rule often on what they feel is right.
I still fail to see what "Law" they have ever made, but if someone can point me to even ONE example of the Court putting a Law on the Books, I would be grateful.
That is because you are willfully ignorant Read Roe v. Wade.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113
 because of their decisions as final-arbiters of our Constitution, some states have made laws? Well, that is the way it is supposedto work.
You are totally ignorant of how it works, aren't you? States cannot pass laws outlawing abortion or providing for school prayer.
Now if Alabama wants to pass some
legislation
/
change to their constitution
,  making it lawful to do that sort of thing, in Alabama, I am all for it, because that too would be brought before our Activist Judges on the S.C., and rejected as unconstitutional.
This statement contradicts your paragraph above.
Again, as it is supposed to work in this country.
No that isn't how it supposed to work. The courts are supposed to be bound by the Constitution but they have declared independence.
This is a non-issue, being made into an issue only because extremists have the opportunity to put such ridiculous ideas on the Web, and try to find some followers, lies or not. It is a huge issue and anyone that has a grasp of what is going on by understanding how government is supposed to work understands that.
BUT... let's say for the sake of argument, that there ARE activist Judges...? OK...Fine.
Which
decisions has our Supreme Court made within say the last 50 years, that are NOT"activist"?
You contradict your self with nearly every word you write.
fold, as usual you make no sense. I answered your question. I am sorry that I just didn't put it in words that you were able to comprehend. But in the future I'll try. It may help in my quest to communicate with my two year old!
"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son"...
I haven't told either of my children about you, fold. The description of you (see above) would be simply to frightening for them.