The Supreme Court vs. The Constitution
Once again, our Supreme Court has decided to use its power to uphold a personal idealogical opinion instead of upholding the Constitution.
In the 5-4 decision to bar the execution of minors, the Court uses a flimsy argument for a "national consensus" against the juvenile death penalty, the fact that other "nations that share our Anglo-American heritage" have overwhelmingly abolished it, and that juveniles are not culpable for their actions because of inherent immaturity.
Now, as far as the consensus, it uses the fact that 30 of the 50 states do not allow the death penalty for juveniles (defined as those under 18). Of those 30, 12 have no death penalty whatsoever. While true, what is missed is the fact that of those that have a death penalty, only 47% (18 of 38) do not allow juveniles to be executed. (That ratio is noted, but it is dismissed by saying basically that even in those states that allow it, the death penaly for juveniles is not used very often).
This is hardly a consensus. But even if it were, deference to the Constitution is ignored. The point here is that the Constitution has nothing to do with a juvenile death penalty, and the states should be allowed to choose. The fact that those states that allow a juvenile to be executed do so rarely only bolsters the fact that allowing a state to choose will not start some rampant string of teenagers being executed.
Then we have the further justification for the court's decision that the world-at-large (well, those "civilized" nations of Western Europe so many liberals wish to emulate) condemns the execution of juveniles. This is absolutely asinine in that the court's own opinion asserts that the reason it can use the opinion of the world to help justify it's decision is because it has used that same approach before! It is cited as precedent, but it is a precedent that should never have been set.
Using purely logical and Constitutional reasons for a decision may be bosltered by stating that other countries have reached the same conclusion. However this is hardly always a good thing. The countries of Western Europe have also embraced socialism quite handily, so using their opinions as part of a justification is hardly something to be proud of. Maybe we should start using the fact that France and Germany partake in certain cultural practices as a justification to decide against such a practice. I'm sure the very notion would cause loyal lefties to choke on their espressos and spit up all over their copies of the New York Times. Yet the other way 'round is perfectly fine in Constitutional matters. It's absolutely ridiculous.
The Constitution is there to protect us from the tyranny of the government, and also the tyranny of the majority. We should always err on the side of the most local government possible, the ideal being self-government. The default for consideration in federal matters should be: Does the Constitution specifically state that this is the realm of the federal government? If not, let the states decide.
Finally, this notion that all juveniles that commit heinous crimes can be assumed to be acting simply out of immature exuberance for which they are not responsible and over which they have no control is preposterous. To quote Justice O'Connor's dissenting optinion:
In the 5-4 decision to bar the execution of minors, the Court uses a flimsy argument for a "national consensus" against the juvenile death penalty, the fact that other "nations that share our Anglo-American heritage" have overwhelmingly abolished it, and that juveniles are not culpable for their actions because of inherent immaturity.
Now, as far as the consensus, it uses the fact that 30 of the 50 states do not allow the death penalty for juveniles (defined as those under 18). Of those 30, 12 have no death penalty whatsoever. While true, what is missed is the fact that of those that have a death penalty, only 47% (18 of 38) do not allow juveniles to be executed. (That ratio is noted, but it is dismissed by saying basically that even in those states that allow it, the death penaly for juveniles is not used very often).
This is hardly a consensus. But even if it were, deference to the Constitution is ignored. The point here is that the Constitution has nothing to do with a juvenile death penalty, and the states should be allowed to choose. The fact that those states that allow a juvenile to be executed do so rarely only bolsters the fact that allowing a state to choose will not start some rampant string of teenagers being executed.
Then we have the further justification for the court's decision that the world-at-large (well, those "civilized" nations of Western Europe so many liberals wish to emulate) condemns the execution of juveniles. This is absolutely asinine in that the court's own opinion asserts that the reason it can use the opinion of the world to help justify it's decision is because it has used that same approach before! It is cited as precedent, but it is a precedent that should never have been set.
Using purely logical and Constitutional reasons for a decision may be bosltered by stating that other countries have reached the same conclusion. However this is hardly always a good thing. The countries of Western Europe have also embraced socialism quite handily, so using their opinions as part of a justification is hardly something to be proud of. Maybe we should start using the fact that France and Germany partake in certain cultural practices as a justification to decide against such a practice. I'm sure the very notion would cause loyal lefties to choke on their espressos and spit up all over their copies of the New York Times. Yet the other way 'round is perfectly fine in Constitutional matters. It's absolutely ridiculous.
The Constitution is there to protect us from the tyranny of the government, and also the tyranny of the majority. We should always err on the side of the most local government possible, the ideal being self-government. The default for consideration in federal matters should be: Does the Constitution specifically state that this is the realm of the federal government? If not, let the states decide.
Finally, this notion that all juveniles that commit heinous crimes can be assumed to be acting simply out of immature exuberance for which they are not responsible and over which they have no control is preposterous. To quote Justice O'Connor's dissenting optinion:
"Adolescents as a class are undoubtedly less mature, and therefore less culpable for their misconduct, than adults. But the Court has adduced no evidence impeaching the seemingly reasonable conclusion reached by many state legislatures: that at least some 17-year-old murderers are sufficiently mature to deserve the death penalty in an appropriate case."It seems to me (as well as mainstream conservative pundits like Rush and Jason Lewis - and anyone with a fucntioning brain for that matter) that the liberals supporting this decision should rethink the "right" young girls have to an abortion if they are all so inherently immature and unable to make responsible decisions.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home