So, the Supremes peered into the US Constitution and found an entry regarding the age of criminal defendants and what punishments states may imposed thereon. I wish they would release the version of the Constitution which they read so we citizens, subject to the document as we are, may read it. Clearly, the one published in text books isn't the one given the Supreme Court. Either that, or it reads differently under the magnification of their crystal ball.
In their own words:
The objective indicia of national consensus here 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, in the words ... used respecting the mentally retarded, as categorically less culpable than the average criminal.
Which amedment, dudes? Does the word "indicia" appear anywhere in the Constititution? Does the Constitution state anywhere that a law adopted by the majority of states shall be the law of the land in all states?
Before you sit for the LSAT and apply to law school, the answer to both questions is "No!" The Supreme Court simply invented yet another law never previously envisioned, either by the Constitution's framers, ratifiers, state legistatures, or prior courts.
The Supreme Court is the Politburo. It rules by whim.
Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt--it must be nice to live in a country where you get freer every day.
If the left says it likes the precent set today, perhaps it should think again. Under the logic of the majority ruling in Roper v. Simmons, anti-abortion groups have all the ammunition they need. By the court's logic, since more than 30 states already have new or existing laws banning abortion, the Supreme Court must hold that abortion is prohibited, taking the decision, not only out of the hands of women, but out of the hands of the states. The court could not logically rule any other way. Then again, logic is the last thing that rules this court.
Jonathan Adler received an e-mail from a DC attorney that explains how this is the end of federalism:
By invoking an imagined "trend" by state legislatures toward the statutory abolition of juvenile capital punishment, the Court effectively is allowing certain states to dictate policy in other states. States like Texas and Virginia now are bound by the policy preferences of legislators in Vermont and Oregon. It's the perfect, if perverse, complement to the Court's increasing invocation of foreign sources of "law," as a result of which the American people as a whole are to be governed by elites in Brussels. . . . Roper thus represents not just an assault on judicial restraint, but an offense against federalism.
Blogs for Bush rounds up Blogger reactions
GOP Bloggers has more
Steven Taylor's reaction to the ruling is evolving.
Very close to my own sentiment is Professor Bainbridge's.
Outside the Beltway was among the first of the bloggers to pounce.
Ipse Dixit is as irritated as I am.
Powerline explains it as well as anyone.
UPDATE: RightwingNews.com makes a strong effort at laughing at the Supreme Court's ruling. To me, though, it just makes me long for the days when America was a democratic-republic instead of oligarchy of lawyers. I urge President Bush to vow to appoint no lawyers to the Supreme Court. The job is too important to leave to men and women who have been trained to lie, obscure, confuse, and twist logic until regular folks through their hands up and say, "screw it--have it your way."