March 3, 2005 - The Supreme Court of France Has Spoken!
Hello Thinkers.
I must be getting old - and maybe the word "getting" could be omitted. 15 years ago, a story like this would have been ne'er a blip on the radar screen. It would have been reported during my commute as I was listening for the traffic report and would have, at most, evoked an odd look at the radio.
But not anymore. Now my wrinkled ass is about as frosted as it gets on a news story. This week, a deconstructionist, socialist pig majority of SCOTUS members chose to usurp the will of the people in twenty states, redefine the Constitution, and ban capital punishment for convicted criminals under 18 years of age - regardless of the circumstances of their crime. Even if you disagree with the death penalty, you should be very concerned at the illogic used by the newly self-appointed Kings of the SCOTUS majority.
The case (Roper v. Simmons) involves Christopher Simmons. When he was eight months shy of his 18th birthday, Simmons terrorized and brutally murdered Shirley Crook. Mrs. Cook was abducted from her home, bound with duct tape and electrical wire and thrown off a railroad trestle into a river - alive and conscious. Prior to the murder, Simmons told his friends they could "get away with it" because they were minors. He was right.
Simmons overpowered Crook, and subjected her to his whims and amusement, and then destroyed her with utter contempt. Similarly, Kings John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy have subjected the US Constitution to their "living document" prism, subservient to the latest opinions from France, and the content of today's Montel Williams Show.
His Highness, Anthony Kennedy penned the opinion of the majority, basing his apologia on three points. First, execution of those under 18 violates the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause based on "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society". Second, a national consensus that those under 18 are less culpable than those over 18. And third (gag), "The overwhelming weight of international opinion."
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04slipopinion.html
To support his irresponsible opinion, King Kennedy writes the following:
"Defense counsel reminded the jurors that juveniles of Simmons age cannot drink, serve on juries, or even see certain movies, because the legislatures have wisely decided that individuals of a certain age aren't responsible enough." Yet later on that same page Kennedy concedes, "Simmons was absent from home for long periods, spending time using alcohol and drugs with other teenagers or young adults." So even though he is too young to drink (and by flawed implication too young to understand what it means to murder), he did it anyway. Knowing he could "get away with it" certainly indicates to me an adult understanding of murder.
In what is among the most maddening of Kennedy's prose, the Pasha of Pointlessness states, "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." So basically what this means is that a jury of citizens is, unlike the "Enlightened Five", too stupid to consider the severity of a crime, the age and condition of the criminal and the surrounding circumstances when determining punishment. Think about Kennedy's statement: "We have established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of..." Yes, they know better than the peasants of the capital punishment states. This is amazing in its arrogance.
Get this - Kennedy then claims, "In Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815 (1988), a plurality of the Court determined that our standards of decency do not permit the execution of any offender under the age of 16 at the time of the crime." So fifteen years ago, SCOTUS decided it was OK to execute 16 and 17 year olds, but since then, the Constitution's meaning has changed drastically. Where is the standardized, reliable process of logic in reaching this conclusion? Do we as a nation feel safe doing ANYTHING that was legal 15 years ago if SCOTUS can turn on a dime like this? Again - regardless of your position on the death penalty, you should be tremendously alarmed at the lack of predictable procedural thought being followed in court opinions. Why does this court think that the Constitution was written to protect popular opinion? And you know that 21 will be the next "age of maturity".
As Justice Antonin Scalia points out in characteristically brilliant dissent, The opinion of the 'Red Five' rely on content from the American Psychiatric Association to conclude that "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." Yet Scalia points out, "In its brief in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990), the APA found a 'rich body of research' showing that juveniles are mature enough to decide whether to obtain an abortion without parental involvement." It's good to be King Kennedy, huh? Just cherry pick the stats that support your current mood and you're done.
To support Kennedy's view of national consensus, the Sultan of Arrogance writes, "the rejection of the juvenile death penalty in the majority of States; the infrequency of its use even where it remains on the books; and the consistency in the trend toward abolition of the practice provide sufficient evidence that today our society views juveniles, ...as categorically less culpable than the average criminal." Yet does he take into account that murderers under 18 represent a small percentage of overall murderers? And why does he infer that because it is a low number, we must rule it out as an option, regardless of the heinous nature of the crime, in ALL cases? And if there is a national consensus against the execution of those under 18, why has no successful presidential candidate embraced this as a major component of their platform? Even Clinton didn't touch this one. Again, the voting peasants of America are too stupid and must have these important decisions made for them.
The flagrant disregard for the Constitution culminates with, "the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty." I wonder which international opinion the justices chose to kneel before. Could it be Islamic law? You know, the kind where an Iranian teenage girl gets a potentially lethal 100 lashes for having sex?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/25/world/main676473.shtml
Or could it be the international opinion, again from Islamic law, that the crime of "Fasad fil-ardh" (spreading mischief in the land) requires death? This category of crime includes rape, adultery and homosexual behavior.
http://islam.about.com/cs/law/a/c_punishment.htm
The global Muslim population is huge. Is this is the "overwhelming weight" SCOTUS refers to?
Subverting the Constitution and our national sovereignty is nothing short of a crime. But I suppose the Kings want to be well received when they visit Paris this summer.
And why does Ruth Ginsberg, who believes that 12 year olds are mature enough to consent to sex, believe that 17 year olds cannot adequately comprehend the concept of murder. Think back - WAY back. Which concept did you understand first? Death or orgasm?
http://www.inoohr.org/ruthbaderginsburg.htm
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/pages/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=2366
http://www.cathfam.org/PR042303.html
In case you are curious, here are a few examples of "the evolving standards of decency" that mark our maturing society.
- Efrain Perez and Raul Villarreal of Harris County (Houston), convicted with three others of the gang-rape and beating deaths of Jennifer Ertman, 14 and Elizabeth Pena, 16. Perez and Villarreal were 17 at the time. Pena's father, Adolph, on Tuesday wore a T-shirt with the girls' photos printed on it. "These people are animals," he said at a news conference held by Harris County murder victims' relatives. "They're the scourge of the streets. If they get out, they will kill again."
- Robert Springsteen of Travis County, convicted at 17 in 2001 of the infamous 'Yogurt Shop' slayings in which four teenage girls were bound, gagged and fatally shot in the head at a yogurt shop a decade earlier.
- Jorge Alfredo Salinas, who at 17 carjacked a man in Hidalgo County in July 2001, fatally shot him in the head, and left the man's 21-month-old daughter to die of dehydration and exposure strapped in her car seat in a brush area near the Rio Grande.
http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=85de330985d9fa01
None of these ambitious youths will receive the punishment that a jury has decided for them. SCOTUS thinks we are too stupid to consider all the factors. Say good-bye to the rule of law. Say hello to the rule of man.
I must be getting old - and maybe the word "getting" could be omitted. 15 years ago, a story like this would have been ne'er a blip on the radar screen. It would have been reported during my commute as I was listening for the traffic report and would have, at most, evoked an odd look at the radio.
But not anymore. Now my wrinkled ass is about as frosted as it gets on a news story. This week, a deconstructionist, socialist pig majority of SCOTUS members chose to usurp the will of the people in twenty states, redefine the Constitution, and ban capital punishment for convicted criminals under 18 years of age - regardless of the circumstances of their crime. Even if you disagree with the death penalty, you should be very concerned at the illogic used by the newly self-appointed Kings of the SCOTUS majority.
The case (Roper v. Simmons) involves Christopher Simmons. When he was eight months shy of his 18th birthday, Simmons terrorized and brutally murdered Shirley Crook. Mrs. Cook was abducted from her home, bound with duct tape and electrical wire and thrown off a railroad trestle into a river - alive and conscious. Prior to the murder, Simmons told his friends they could "get away with it" because they were minors. He was right.
Simmons overpowered Crook, and subjected her to his whims and amusement, and then destroyed her with utter contempt. Similarly, Kings John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy have subjected the US Constitution to their "living document" prism, subservient to the latest opinions from France, and the content of today's Montel Williams Show.
His Highness, Anthony Kennedy penned the opinion of the majority, basing his apologia on three points. First, execution of those under 18 violates the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause based on "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society". Second, a national consensus that those under 18 are less culpable than those over 18. And third (gag), "The overwhelming weight of international opinion."
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04slipopinion.html
To support his irresponsible opinion, King Kennedy writes the following:
"Defense counsel reminded the jurors that juveniles of Simmons age cannot drink, serve on juries, or even see certain movies, because the legislatures have wisely decided that individuals of a certain age aren't responsible enough." Yet later on that same page Kennedy concedes, "Simmons was absent from home for long periods, spending time using alcohol and drugs with other teenagers or young adults." So even though he is too young to drink (and by flawed implication too young to understand what it means to murder), he did it anyway. Knowing he could "get away with it" certainly indicates to me an adult understanding of murder.
In what is among the most maddening of Kennedy's prose, the Pasha of Pointlessness states, "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." So basically what this means is that a jury of citizens is, unlike the "Enlightened Five", too stupid to consider the severity of a crime, the age and condition of the criminal and the surrounding circumstances when determining punishment. Think about Kennedy's statement: "We have established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of..." Yes, they know better than the peasants of the capital punishment states. This is amazing in its arrogance.
Get this - Kennedy then claims, "In Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815 (1988), a plurality of the Court determined that our standards of decency do not permit the execution of any offender under the age of 16 at the time of the crime." So fifteen years ago, SCOTUS decided it was OK to execute 16 and 17 year olds, but since then, the Constitution's meaning has changed drastically. Where is the standardized, reliable process of logic in reaching this conclusion? Do we as a nation feel safe doing ANYTHING that was legal 15 years ago if SCOTUS can turn on a dime like this? Again - regardless of your position on the death penalty, you should be tremendously alarmed at the lack of predictable procedural thought being followed in court opinions. Why does this court think that the Constitution was written to protect popular opinion? And you know that 21 will be the next "age of maturity".
As Justice Antonin Scalia points out in characteristically brilliant dissent, The opinion of the 'Red Five' rely on content from the American Psychiatric Association to conclude that "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." Yet Scalia points out, "In its brief in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990), the APA found a 'rich body of research' showing that juveniles are mature enough to decide whether to obtain an abortion without parental involvement." It's good to be King Kennedy, huh? Just cherry pick the stats that support your current mood and you're done.
To support Kennedy's view of national consensus, the Sultan of Arrogance writes, "the rejection of the juvenile death penalty in the majority of States; the infrequency of its use even where it remains on the books; and the consistency in the trend toward abolition of the practice provide sufficient evidence that today our society views juveniles, ...as categorically less culpable than the average criminal." Yet does he take into account that murderers under 18 represent a small percentage of overall murderers? And why does he infer that because it is a low number, we must rule it out as an option, regardless of the heinous nature of the crime, in ALL cases? And if there is a national consensus against the execution of those under 18, why has no successful presidential candidate embraced this as a major component of their platform? Even Clinton didn't touch this one. Again, the voting peasants of America are too stupid and must have these important decisions made for them.
The flagrant disregard for the Constitution culminates with, "the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty." I wonder which international opinion the justices chose to kneel before. Could it be Islamic law? You know, the kind where an Iranian teenage girl gets a potentially lethal 100 lashes for having sex?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/25/world/main676473.shtml
Or could it be the international opinion, again from Islamic law, that the crime of "Fasad fil-ardh" (spreading mischief in the land) requires death? This category of crime includes rape, adultery and homosexual behavior.
http://islam.about.com/cs/law/a/c_punishment.htm
The global Muslim population is huge. Is this is the "overwhelming weight" SCOTUS refers to?
Subverting the Constitution and our national sovereignty is nothing short of a crime. But I suppose the Kings want to be well received when they visit Paris this summer.
And why does Ruth Ginsberg, who believes that 12 year olds are mature enough to consent to sex, believe that 17 year olds cannot adequately comprehend the concept of murder. Think back - WAY back. Which concept did you understand first? Death or orgasm?
http://www.inoohr.org/ruthbaderginsburg.htm
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/pages/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=2366
http://www.cathfam.org/PR042303.html
In case you are curious, here are a few examples of "the evolving standards of decency" that mark our maturing society.
- Efrain Perez and Raul Villarreal of Harris County (Houston), convicted with three others of the gang-rape and beating deaths of Jennifer Ertman, 14 and Elizabeth Pena, 16. Perez and Villarreal were 17 at the time. Pena's father, Adolph, on Tuesday wore a T-shirt with the girls' photos printed on it. "These people are animals," he said at a news conference held by Harris County murder victims' relatives. "They're the scourge of the streets. If they get out, they will kill again."
- Robert Springsteen of Travis County, convicted at 17 in 2001 of the infamous 'Yogurt Shop' slayings in which four teenage girls were bound, gagged and fatally shot in the head at a yogurt shop a decade earlier.
- Jorge Alfredo Salinas, who at 17 carjacked a man in Hidalgo County in July 2001, fatally shot him in the head, and left the man's 21-month-old daughter to die of dehydration and exposure strapped in her car seat in a brush area near the Rio Grande.
http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=85de330985d9fa01
None of these ambitious youths will receive the punishment that a jury has decided for them. SCOTUS thinks we are too stupid to consider all the factors. Say good-bye to the rule of law. Say hello to the rule of man.
posted by tuffbeingright at 12:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home