A sharp debate, and right to the point. See Lothar's post above.
Woodchip wrote:First off the easy work around is to jail the underage killer, wait until he is 18...then execute him.
Wrong on that one chip. The holding is that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of death penalty on offenders who were under age of 18
when their crimes were committed.
Lothar wrote:It's pretty clear there are really two issues here:
1) whether or not the death penalty itself is good/bad
2) whether or not the court had any basis on which to set age 18 as the limit for the death penalty.
I think this is about right, and I echo Will's analysis that the ruling isn't grounded in the Constitution.
And that's the problem, I think, Goob. The result might be pleasing to you, but in my opinion it should alarm you.
To reach this result, the Supreme abrogated its own opinion -- one that is only 15 years old. That is absolutely astonishing. How old is Roe v. Wade?
Here's a quote from that opinion:
Majority Opinion from Stanford v. Kentucky, recently abrogated by the Supreme Court wrote: When this Court cast loose from the historical moorings consisting of the original application of the Eighth Amendment, it did not embark rudderless upon a wide-open sea. Rather, it limited the Amendment's extension to those practices contrary to the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S., at 101, 78 S.Ct., at 598 (plurality opinion) (emphasis added). It has never been thought that this was a shorthand reference to the preferences of a majority of this Court. By reaching a decision supported neither by constitutional text nor by the demonstrable current standards of our citizens, the dissent displays a failure to appreciate that "those institutions which the Constitution is supposed to limit" include the Court itself. To say, as the dissent says, that " 'it is for us ultimately to judge whether the Eighth Amendment permits imposition of the death penalty,' " post, at 2986 (emphasis added), quoting Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S., at 797, 102 S.Ct., at 3377--and to mean that as the dissent means it, i.e., that it is for us to judge, not on the basis of what we perceive the Eighth Amendment originally prohibited, or on the basis of what we perceive the society through its democratic processes now overwhelmingly disapproves, but on the basis of what we think "proportionate" and "measurably contributory to acceptable goals of punishment"--to say and mean that, is to replace judges of the law with a committee of philosopher-kings. (Stanford v. Kentucky (1989) 492 U.S. 361, *379.) (Emphasis in bold added ... by Bold, oddly enough)
I study the Constitution, and I have a fair reputation for being knowledgeable about its contents, and constitutional interpretation in general. I studied it extensively in law school, and happened to excel in those classes, not because I'm extraordinary -- I just love studying it. I also took advanced constitutional law courses, stateside and abroad in London and the University of Exeter. But I have never seen the Supreme Court reverse itself in this way, in the mere span of 15 years. It blows me away.
This is why the nuclear option that is about to be deployed in the U.S. senate is so significant to me. And timely.
If the Supreme Court can simply, by fiat, decide that a "child" who is 17 years, 364 days, and 23 hours can commit murder and elude the death penalty based on its own view of "constitutional interpretation", then you better make sure your own oxen has some body armour. Roe v. Wade was crafted out of the same ethereal brew -- there was no constitutional penumbra of privacy rights out of which leapt that miserable opinion -- until Justice Blackmun started re-drafting the Constitution to his own personal liking. So far, Roe has been given stare decisis effect.
How long do you think that rule of law will last after the conservative backlash from this little gift from the Supreme Court? There's really no telling. But I would caution -- be careful what you wish for in terms of an organic, evolving constitution. You might just get it.
BD
If I agree with Gooberman about the death penalty in general, but I also agree with Lothar, Will Rob, and others about the way the Supreme Court made the ruling, which way do I vote?
)
