Tuesday, March 01, 2005


    Today: "The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes." The Supreme idiots have now given all violent gang members or any violent person under 18 the promise they can now kill without fear of the death penalty - just kill before you're 18.


    nonpcpundit said...

    It's amazing what a bunch of yahoos in black robes can decide the constitution does or does not "say." ( Robed people should not be trusted.) The constitution does not say that people under 18 cannot be executed for murder. Nor, for that matter, does the first amendment give journalists the "right" to keep sources hidden when they have broken the law. Nor does the constitution require that our government must disclose classified information, or that "freedom of speech" means that dissenters in the government have some right or obligation to expose national secrets--and jeopardize the security of all of us--and protect journalists who violate the law by prininting that matter. The journalistic rights under the first amendment allow them to legally gather as much info as they can and print it to keep the government in check. But the constitution also gives the people the right to elect a legislative body for the enactment of laws to protect us and guarantee a civil society. By exercising our vote, we acknowledge that we give up certain freedoms to others to govern us. It's the Supreme Court that gets everything all nutted up.

    : JustaDog said...

    "Justice Anthony Kennedy, who cast the swing vote and who delivered the majority opinion, said that the “overwhelming weight of international opinion” against the juvenile death penalty had helped to sway the verdict. Justice Kennedy cited Britain’s abolition of the death penalty in 1948 for those who committed crimes as minors."

    Excuse me, but since when does the USA contour it's justice system based on international opinion?

    But Justice Anton Scalia said that the idea that US law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world “ought to be rejected out of hand”. Good for Justice Scalia!


    : JustaDog said...

    So now a radical 17 year old Muslim can put together a biological agent, disperse it and kill 50,000 Americans, and not worry about the death penalty. In our system he will be fed, probably be placed in a private cell, the ACLU will make sure he has TV and internet access, the chance for in-jail education - maybe even get a law degree.

    Amazing, yet so sad. Hope this crap can get turned over.

    nonpcpundit said...

    You picked up on one thing--the internationalist politically correct attitude shows how our noble Supreme Court gets down on its knees and bows to a bunch of third-world trash and euro-geek patronizers.

    Gindy said...

    This is a headline I ran across today.

    "Supreme Court Outlaws Death Penalty for Minors"

    Since when does the Supreme Court make law or rescind law. I thought it was their job to interpret law passed by the legislatures. That is if I understand the word correctly.

    nonpcpundit said...

    Gindy hit the nail on the head. The problem with the U.S. today is an activist court that not only interprets law and hears cases, they want to make the law as well. This is the essence of tyranny, which is why the founders set up a tripartite government of checks and balances. It prevented too much power resting in the wrong hands. Laws are to be made by the legislature, which is Congress. The chief executive, the President, is tasked by the constitution with seeing to the enforcement of laws. The judiciary, the last body mentioned (for an obvious reason--they are third in line on the power issue) are only to hear cases and interpret law. The Founders put the creation of Congress before all else, because this is supposed to be a representative government. Laws, therefore, should come from those the people vote into office because they are the ones sent to office to attend to our needs. The special interest groups love the activist jurists because that way they can bypass the ballot box--the hallmark of representative government--and get what they want through their own means--using the legal system to thwart the will of the majority.