A tale of two court decisions
Two fairly disparate cases and some pretty disparate reasoning from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional the sentence of the death penalty in cases where someone is found to be guilty of raping a child. Whether or not that is the right way to deal with child rapists is not the issue here, the proper role of the Supreme Court specifically and the judiciary in general is. On what basis should decisions be made by the courts? Should it not be the underlying constitution of the nation or the state? Apparently not.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court narrowly ruled Wednesday that a man convicted of raping a child cannot be sentenced to death, saying capital punishment must be reserved for murder cases.
By a one-vote majority of 5-4 the justices said the US constitution which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment" bars the imposition of the death penalty "for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim's death."
In its written ruling, the court specified that even if a rape was particularly atrocious, it was impossible to set down a list of circumstances under which the death penalty would be justified, without opening the door to arbitrary decisions.
But in its ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court cited a "national consensus" across most US states that do not have laws allowing capital punishment for the crime of child rape.
Given previous court rulings and its interpretation of the US constitution, the justices held that "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the crime of child rape."
So is the rape of a child now more acceptable in our society and no longer worthy of the death penalty, or is it that we have become so squeamish about using the ultimate penalty that even those convicted of this heinous crime against children under 12 years of age don't deserve it, that you actually have to intentionally kill another person to be sentenced to death. Apparently the "national consensus" trumps the Constitution. You see, the Court is supposed to be above the political fray, interpreting the law based on what the Constitution of our country says. If the "national consensus" changes, then the nation can amend the Constitution. We have a process in place for overriding the Constitution, and it is not judicial fiat.
What is unfortunately true in this country is that it is far easier for a group with an agenda to get top notch lawyers and convince five justices to change the law than it is to convince the majority of people in a state to make sweeping changes. See Roe v. Wade, see the California Supreme Court imposing homosexual "marriage" on that state and the rest of the country.
Most people have no idea what cases are before the court, what they are arguing and yet the rulings that come down have far reaching implications for our every day life. I don't pay as close attention as I should, because what is being decided on my behalf directly impacts me and in many cases skirts the legal process.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court at long last actually made a decision today from the bench that was the correct one. Not just because I agree with it, but because it deals with something the Constitution actually addresses (guns) and they did so in a way consistent with the clear original intent of the Founders that gun ownership was considered a fundamental, and an individual, right.
Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun control in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Predictable, the Left has come out predicting dire events...
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.
Sure Senator Feinstein, because the gun ban made law abiding citizens in D.C. so very safe, right!
What this means for the people of D.C. is that finally people who are not criminals will not be treated as if they are, and will have the means to legally defend themselves, their families, homes and property. It also means that other punitive gun laws across the country will be challenged very soon and likely struck down. We may see an end to many of the inane laws that assume that if you make something illegal, it will discourage criminals.
Two fairly disparate cases and some pretty disparate reasoning from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional the sentence of the death penalty in cases where someone is found to be guilty of raping a child. Whether or not that is the right way to deal with child rapists is not the issue here, the proper role of the Supreme Court specifically and the judiciary in general is. On what basis should decisions be made by the courts? Should it not be the underlying constitution of the nation or the state? Apparently not.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court narrowly ruled Wednesday that a man convicted of raping a child cannot be sentenced to death, saying capital punishment must be reserved for murder cases.
By a one-vote majority of 5-4 the justices said the US constitution which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment" bars the imposition of the death penalty "for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim's death."
In its written ruling, the court specified that even if a rape was particularly atrocious, it was impossible to set down a list of circumstances under which the death penalty would be justified, without opening the door to arbitrary decisions.
But in its ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court cited a "national consensus" across most US states that do not have laws allowing capital punishment for the crime of child rape.
Given previous court rulings and its interpretation of the US constitution, the justices held that "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the crime of child rape."
So is the rape of a child now more acceptable in our society and no longer worthy of the death penalty, or is it that we have become so squeamish about using the ultimate penalty that even those convicted of this heinous crime against children under 12 years of age don't deserve it, that you actually have to intentionally kill another person to be sentenced to death. Apparently the "national consensus" trumps the Constitution. You see, the Court is supposed to be above the political fray, interpreting the law based on what the Constitution of our country says. If the "national consensus" changes, then the nation can amend the Constitution. We have a process in place for overriding the Constitution, and it is not judicial fiat.
What is unfortunately true in this country is that it is far easier for a group with an agenda to get top notch lawyers and convince five justices to change the law than it is to convince the majority of people in a state to make sweeping changes. See Roe v. Wade, see the California Supreme Court imposing homosexual "marriage" on that state and the rest of the country.
Most people have no idea what cases are before the court, what they are arguing and yet the rulings that come down have far reaching implications for our every day life. I don't pay as close attention as I should, because what is being decided on my behalf directly impacts me and in many cases skirts the legal process.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court at long last actually made a decision today from the bench that was the correct one. Not just because I agree with it, but because it deals with something the Constitution actually addresses (guns) and they did so in a way consistent with the clear original intent of the Founders that gun ownership was considered a fundamental, and an individual, right.
Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun control in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Predictable, the Left has come out predicting dire events...
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.
Sure Senator Feinstein, because the gun ban made law abiding citizens in D.C. so very safe, right!
What this means for the people of D.C. is that finally people who are not criminals will not be treated as if they are, and will have the means to legally defend themselves, their families, homes and property. It also means that other punitive gun laws across the country will be challenged very soon and likely struck down. We may see an end to many of the inane laws that assume that if you make something illegal, it will discourage criminals.
Guns don't kill people, criminals kill people!
2 comments:
I totally agree with you about the court ruling in California. What a mess. Lot's of folks still don't know that to "expand" the definition of marriage, the court actually had to render marriage in California gender-neutral. That is the marriage licenses no longer say "husband" and "wife." Instead, they say "Party A" and "Party B."
Since marriage is gender-positive, the right to marry, to become husband and wife, has been denied to the people of California. Check out: http://thetowncirer.blogspot.com/
Ha, I was holding in my hand this very day at a place called "Book Nook" a copy of 1984. Ode to irony....ode to irony...
Post a Comment