Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Supreme Court Boggles My Mind
The Supreme Court today outlawed the executions of minors. I say "outlawed" instead of "banned" because there is nothing in the Constitution to warrant this decision. It is based on the opinion of what the justices believe things ought to be. Their decision actually cited unratified international treaties. We already saw how Justice Scalia thoroughly dismantled this method in his debate with Breyer at Harvard.
At this point, I have to stop and mention something. Just because you agree with the outcome of the decision doesn't mean you should support the decision. Just because you support abortion doesn't mean Roe v. Wade was a good or proper legal decision.
Ok...back to the decision.
I thought to ban a law it had to be cruel AND unusual. Just being cruel doesn't satisfy both sides of the conjunction. I would argue that executing a 17 year old serial killer isn't cruel. Even if it was, it isn't unusual. I guess I have to go to law school to learn the magic that turns "and" into "or."
And then we form the content of "cruel" by scouring the earth for a (any) legal precedent in the entire world (Western Europe and Canada). Now, the rest of the world could slay 17 year olds without any cause and the Supreme Court would conveniently overlook this fact.
This should properly be decided by state legislatures. But the Supreme Court has decided to make themselves our unconstitutional overlords.
If I were president, I would sign a proclamation declaring judicial review is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Guess what? It's isn't.
The Supreme Court today outlawed the executions of minors. I say "outlawed" instead of "banned" because there is nothing in the Constitution to warrant this decision. It is based on the opinion of what the justices believe things ought to be. Their decision actually cited unratified international treaties. We already saw how Justice Scalia thoroughly dismantled this method in his debate with Breyer at Harvard.
At this point, I have to stop and mention something. Just because you agree with the outcome of the decision doesn't mean you should support the decision. Just because you support abortion doesn't mean Roe v. Wade was a good or proper legal decision.
Ok...back to the decision.
I thought to ban a law it had to be cruel AND unusual. Just being cruel doesn't satisfy both sides of the conjunction. I would argue that executing a 17 year old serial killer isn't cruel. Even if it was, it isn't unusual. I guess I have to go to law school to learn the magic that turns "and" into "or."
And then we form the content of "cruel" by scouring the earth for a (any) legal precedent in the entire world (Western Europe and Canada). Now, the rest of the world could slay 17 year olds without any cause and the Supreme Court would conveniently overlook this fact.
This should properly be decided by state legislatures. But the Supreme Court has decided to make themselves our unconstitutional overlords.
If I were president, I would sign a proclamation declaring judicial review is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Guess what? It's isn't.
