A Disconcerting Supreme Court Decision

[Stephen Joseph 0]

RJ, why don't you a) read Scalia with an open mind b) read Wildbomb's posts and learn how to make an argument, and c) come back and offer something up other than blind obedience to dictum when you're ready.

 

You have yet to explain how what the Supreme Court did was judicial activism, rather than judicial review, other than repeatedly defining judicial activism for us. Simply put, if you've actually made the connection between judicial activism and the Supreme Court's ruling, I sure don't see it.

 

My argument style is simple:

-state a premise.

-provide facts.

-explain how the facts support the premise.

 

I've done this every step of the way, so I don't know why you're complaining.

 

You're confusing the definition of judicial review and the viewpoint SJ holds, which is strict constructionalism, much like Mr. Scalia.

 

I'm not confusing anything. He's repeated tried to say that what the Supreme Court did was judicial activism, while I argue that its simply judicial review. In my opinion, the Supreme Court's decision should be satisfactory to either schools of interpretation given that the term "cruel and unusual punishment" is actually used in the 8th Amendment.

 

You're also failing to use some key legal terms in your argument here, which is partially why you're being torn to shreds.

 

Oh, I'M SORRY. I didn't see the sign on the board that said "lawyer's only".

 

Like I said, my argument style is simple:

-state a premise.

-provide facts.

-explain how the facts support the premise.

 

That's more than the rest of you fuckers seem to be able to do most of the time.

In my mind the judicial system( and what I call proper judicial review) is this:

 

Hearing a case about an already established law. Then look at the spirit and original intent of the law. Decide on that basis where or not the case has merit

 

I define judicial activism (aka judicial review)as such

 

Hearing a case about an already established law. Decide on the merits of the law in society today. Decide on that basis where or not the case has merit.

 

The former definition is strict constructionalism. The latter is loose interpretationism.

 

The fact that you think there is a way to make a decision satistifying to both camps of action belies the fact that you do not understand the principles behind both camps. Given an action, you either explicate it to the letter of the law or reinterpret the law. There are times where both will agree. There are other times where this is not the case.

 

You also have yet to acknowledge sitting down and reading what Scalia has to say (something Wildbomb did) and yet open your mind enough to understand what the other side is saying.

 

I note: When presented with a good argument that disagrees with my own (see: wildbomb) I read it, understood it, argued it, realized we're at an impasse, and decided that agreeing to disagree was the best course. You continue to push your belief regardless, showing no acknowledgement of the other viewpoint.

[SuperJerk 0]

The fact that you think there is a way to make a decision satistifying to both camps of action belies the fact that you do not understand the principles behind both camps.

 

Bullshit.

 

If a law is passed that plainly violates a constitutional provision, then EVERYONE should be able to agree it needs to be overturned, regardless of Constitutional interpretation. There HAVE BEEN unanimous Supreme Court decisions, you know.

 

If some state passed a law that said that newspapers had to be screened by a government agency before it could be published, it would be ruled unconstitutional in a heartbeat. Why? It violates the First Amendment. Everyone can agree on this.

 

If you want to convince me that the founders would be okay with executing 16 year olds, THEN maybe you could convince me that the practice does not violate cruel and unusual punishment as they intended it to mean.

 

Regardless of that, however, to not take into consideration what we now know about human psychology when deciding if the practice violates cruel and unusual punishment is irrational. Hiding behind the founding fathers, and saying because THEY didn't know something WE'RE not allowed to use it as the basis for coming to a conclusion is a slippery slope I don't think you want to be on.

 

You continue to push your belief regardless, showing no acknowledgement of the other viewpoint.

 

Were I actually doing that, I would not be quoting you and making counterpoints. Quit trying to confuse the issue by attacking me personally, rather than sticking to the topic at hand.

[Special K 0]

Again, RJ, just think about all the fun we're going to have when a bunch when/if a bunch of conservative zealots get in there. Then tell me that the judiciary is just interpreting a couple laws.

 

You've yet to really explain why a judge should overturn the will of the people in a democracy (or republic, whatever) why they don't have an EXTREMELY strong case to do so.

[Guest MikeSC]

The fact that you think there is a way to make a decision satistifying to both camps of action belies the fact that you do not understand the principles behind both camps.

 

Bullshit.

 

If a law is passed that plainly violates a constitutional provision, then EVERYONE should be able to agree it needs to be overturned, regardless of Constitutional interpretation. There HAVE BEEN unanimous Supreme Court decisions, you know.

And, in THIS case, it is not the case. In any way, shape, or form.

If some state passed a law that said that newspapers had to be screened by a government agency before it could be published, it would be ruled unconstitutional in a heartbeat.  Why?  It violates the First Amendment.  Everyone can agree on this.

You think so?

 

You might want to look at the powers McCain/Feingold actually gives to the gov't. Blogs are likely to end up regulated by the gov't --- and if you wish to argue that the gov't should have the ability to decide what IS the press, then you have taken the first step towards tyranny.

If you want to convince me that the founders would be okay with executing 16 year olds, THEN maybe you could convince me that the practice does not violate cruel and unusual punishment as they intended it to mean. 

The Court said it's legal. Unless you can prove that the exceptionally arbitrary age of 18 is somehow more legitimate than the equally arbitrary age of 16, feel free.

 

Unless you can prove that execution of 16 year olds was EXPRESSLY forbidden by the Founding Fathers (to give you a hint, you can't), then that is an issue that the 10TH AMENDMENT was designed to handle.

Regardless of that, however, to not take into consideration what we now know about human psychology when deciding if the practice violates cruel and unusual punishment is irrational.

We do?

 

Psychology has proven itself to be up for purchase to the highest bidder.

Hiding behind the founding fathers, and saying because THEY didn't know something WE'RE not allowed to use it as the basis for coming to a conclusion is a slippery slope I don't think you want to be on.

And deciding that 5 octogenarians should be able to rule on an issue with no real ground to stand on is an EVEN more slippery slope than you'd want to stand on.

 

If the Constitution does not deal with it, then leave it up to the states.

 

You know, how the 10TH AMENDMENT stated.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Psychology has proven itself to be up for purchase to the highest bidder.

 

Way to invalidate an entire field of social science, Mike.

 

Do you also wish to invalidate other fields that disagree with your points of view, or will be able to admit maybe they know something you don't?

 

You know, how the 10TH AMENDMENT stated.

 

The 10th Amendment only applies to things not listed elsewhere in the Constitution. Since cruel and unusual punishment is dealt with specfically in the 8th Amendment, the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction here.

 

You might want to look at the powers McCain/Feingold actually gives to the gov't.

 

My understanding is that McCain/Feingold uses some of the same loopholes to violate the First Amendment that the FCC uses.

 

And has McCain/Feingold been upheld by the Supreme Court?

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

RJ, why don't you a) read Scalia with an open mind b) read Wildbomb's posts and learn how to make an argument, and c) come back and offer something up other than blind obedience to dictum when you're ready.

 

You have yet to explain how what the Supreme Court did was judicial activism, rather than judicial review, other than repeatedly defining judicial activism for us. Simply put, if you've actually made the connection between judicial activism and the Supreme Court's ruling, I sure don't see it.

 

My argument style is simple:

-state a premise.

-provide facts.

-explain how the facts support the premise.

 

I've done this every step of the way, so I don't know why you're complaining.

 

You're confusing the definition of judicial review and the viewpoint SJ holds, which is strict constructionalism, much like Mr. Scalia.

 

I'm not confusing anything. He's repeated tried to say that what the Supreme Court did was judicial activism, while I argue that its simply judicial review. In my opinion, the Supreme Court's decision should be satisfactory to either schools of interpretation given that the term "cruel and unusual punishment" is actually used in the 8th Amendment.

 

You're also failing to use some key legal terms in your argument here, which is partially why you're being torn to shreds.

 

Oh, I'M SORRY. I didn't see the sign on the board that said "lawyer's only".

 

Like I said, my argument style is simple:

-state a premise.

-provide facts.

-explain how the facts support the premise.

 

That's more than the rest of you fuckers seem to be able to do most of the time.

Easy there, big fella.

 

Now, the reason why I put the whole deal about legal terms is that they are essential to your argument, which you are not making very well. The point of the matter is that what Stephen Joseph is arguing is a valid theory of constitutional law. Period. End of story. Accept it for what it is. I care to disagree with it because I feel that it makes constitutional law therefore archaic.

 

Mike has a different theory of consitutional law, which is essentially hard constructionalism: what the Constitution says, period, along with the theories that formed the law when they were written, should be the basis of Supreme Court decisions. Mr. Scalia, and a few other members of the TSM board subscribe to this theory of Constitutional law.

 

The fact that this Supreme Court ruled against these theories of law does not make them invalid; they are felt to not apply in this manner. A Surpreme Court further down the road could potentially use the theory of law proscribed in Mr. Scalia's dissent to overturn the decision handed down last week.

 

If you've been paying attention as well, you'll have noticed that nowhere in either decision do they make mention of the sheer aspect that makes the death penalty legal to begin with: the due process clause. Considering that this case is about the death penalty, it would be essential to have brought that up as a theory of law. However, the case says nothing about said due process, which means that the government failed to bring this matter up. In other words, then, the government failed to prove the death penalty legal (which is necessary to the case), hence making the Supreme Court decision a bit easier. Had the Supreme Court been presented with said due process clause, it becomes far more difficult to argue the 8th Amendment's protection from cruel and unusual punishment, as the death penalty is considered legal. All about checks and balances here, folks.

 

That's not to say that I don't agree with the decision the Court made; I most certainly do. It's just that you need to be able to argue it rationally. Considering that this is all about the Constitution, you need to be able to present it. Just quoting the 8th Amendment doesn't make it right.

 

 

Now, Mike, let's play nice here.

 

No, judicial review in its current form was not intended by the framers of the Constitution. Justice Marshall circumvented that, although he did use a sound theory of law behind it, as Article III, section ii, paragraph i states: "The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, under Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..." That phrase itself gives the judiciary power to review the Constitution as it applies to the states, the Legislature, and the Executive. This, I believe, WAS intentional on the parts of the Founding Fathers. To say that there needs to be a way to overturn the Supreme Court is, quite honestly, stupid. Think of the First Amendment cases that would have been overruled in these instances: Near v. Minnesota, NY Times v. United States (although probably not the best example), Termeniello v. Chicago. The Supreme Court is finite in order to keep the other two branches of government in line.

 

--Ryan

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Looks up at the last post

<---That, RobotJerk, is how you form an argument and make a post.

 

To respond to you. To me, you're simply confusing emotional reason with logical reason.

 

Logically, the FF did not forbid the death penalty nor anything associated with the death penalty. The death penalty was legislated into existence and is not contrary to constitutional law. Nowhere did they expressedly forbid this.

 

Over time, the SC interpreted such laws as that one must have the mental faculties of an adult to be tried with the death penalty. Legislation was brought forth to protect the insane...etc.

 

I believe in the strictest version of the separation of powers. Therefore, I believe that the court acted beyond its boundaries, as their edict in effect legislates law, not clarifying law. I stated that I would rather this had been handled in a legislative manner.

 

Do you think I like the death penalty? The death penalty in its current form is an absolute joke, because really, its a 20 years in a cell slow death penalty. Better off without it.

 

And Ryan, why yes, the particular theory I ascribe to makes constitutional law archaic. That's why I find it so appealing.

[SuperJerk 0]

The point of the matter is that what Stephen Joseph is arguing is a valid theory of constitutional law.

 

My problem with his argument isn't that I can't see the difference between judicial activism and judicial review. My problem with his argument is that I can see how a strict constructionist using the definition of judicial review he gave could STILL find the law unconstitutional given the wording of the 8th Amendment, whereas he does not.

 

<---That, RobotJerk, is how you form an argument and make a post.

 

Just because my posts are written in an easier-to-read format, doesn't make my arguments any less valid. I want EVERYONE to be able to read my posts, not just the elite few who have taken class after class of political science or law.

 

I've posted in the past with these long diatribes featuring long definitions and multiple examples...but what's the point? If I can say what I want to say with a few words, then I've done my job. I don't feel the urge to over-analyze things just to impress people with my vocabulary. Yes, his post was a brilliant use of examples and logic...but you know what? He hasn't done any better of a job convincing you that you're wrong than I have.

 

See, you're an economist (or something) by trade. You feel like its a badge of honor to use 100 words to explain something when 10 would do. I'm a high school social studies and special education teacher. I look for the simplest way possible to explain something complicated.

 

And you do realize that arrow was pointing at your OWN avatar, don't you?

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Yes, sadly, there isn't an up arrow.

 

Ryan posted well, and I saw his point clearly stated with alot of backup. Yours I do not, because what points I make ding off your intellectual armor.

 

Hence, I'm done. No sense arguing with a brick wall.

 

Toodles.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

The point here is not that I'm trying to prove him wrong, either. I'm just presenting the theories of law that support the decision that are overly just referred to in the actual decision of the Court.

 

The point you're trying to make about the 8th Amendment: we do not know what cruel and unusual punishment is. Period. That is what this case is about=determining what that MEANS. The Supreme Court used precedent in their decision, but what a lot of people are disagreeing about is that the Court also took into consideration international opinion in determining the laws of the United States. That's not constitutional law; that's an advisory decision, which is what the Court is NOT supposed to be there for. The Court's supposed to be about constitutional law theory. End of discussion. And although I disagree with Stephen on his theory of constitutional law, which I've been through a few times, I have to respect it. Because it's based on the law.

 

--Ryan

[Perfxion 0]

My 2cents:

 

The case is right and wrong on parts. International opinion should have ZERO baring on my laws. Its good to use the Int'l opinion to guide some laws, but the court should never look over the pond to understand and define US law.

 

However, this case is hazy but still important. If a 10 year old kills someone, should they get the chair the same as an 18 year old? There is a big difference between someone 10 and 18. In every way shape or form. At 18 a person can get married(also under but with parent consent), play the lotto, go to titty bars, smoke, drive(laws in CT and NY being 18 these days),vote, and most importantly, willing die for this country. Almost all of these perks are not allowed to people under the age of 18. So why should laws treat them as adults without allowing them to be adults?

 

If the government is going to vote on laws like such to allow capital punishment to be allowed, and these people are voted by the citizens, why are only people above 18 allowed to vote these people in? If you are saying a person under 18 is in the same mental field as a person above 18, then the person under 18 should as many perks as some who is say 27.

 

However, one thing I do think needs to be done is that juvinile laws need to be made MUCH tighter, a person 12 to 17 should get 50 to life for crimes such as rape in murder, not this jailing until 21 shit.

[NoCalMike 0]

Maybe the solution is not to have laws that are basically a blanket, that prevent using common sense. I am not for juveniles being executed, but at the same time, I don't really buy into "the 17 year old's brain wasn't fully developed enough to know what he was doing" notion, either.

 

What is wrong with the idea of treating things case-to-case, well I guess one would be knee-jerk emotions/reactions, but still it seems that everyone should have a case that pertains soley to their situation, and shouldn't be influenced by what someone else did some other time.

[SuperJerk 0]

Yes, sadly, there isn't an up arrow.

^

 

See that? Its an up arrow.

 

If you push "shift" and the "6" button at the same time, you can make one too.

 

 

Hence, I'm done. No sense arguing with a brick wall.

 

I've conceded arguments to MikeSC before. I've conceded arguments to Anglesault before. Does that still make me a brick wall? No, it just means they're better at making convincing arguments than you. Quit blaming others for your own short-comings.

 

 

I don't really buy into "the 17 year old's brain wasn't fully developed enough to know what he was doing" notion, either.

 

I'd argue that most 18 year olds' brains aren't fully developed enough to know what they were doing either, but you got to draw the line somewhere.

 

There's not a lot of difference between a 17 and an 18 year old, but since society has already been using 18 as the age where you are legally an adult, that's a good place to have the line drawn.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

4-2

 

to some people, you're removing two from four

to others, you're adding negative two to four

 

The whole "They're creating law" claim is blatantly dishonest. What's going on is that the Supreme Court is overturning a law. That is subtracting that law from the books. That is not adding a law.

 

Saying that overturning a law is adding a law is wrong. It's the lack of a law against something which makes it legal. That's the way things are. The Constitution doesn't say "You can", it says "The Government can't", and laws in general say "You can't". If there is no law prohibiting an action, then it is a legal action. There's not many cases of laws being passed to legalize an already legal action.

 

So yeah.. the whole "They're creating law" claim is just dishonest

[Vyce 0]

Man, Wildbomb is on FIRE in this thread.

 

I never really paid any attention to any of his posts before (no offense to him, he's just not as.....colorful......as some of the other CE posters), but I'm very impressed by his arguing skills as well as his absolutely wonderful and on point dissection of the law. Bravo, sir, bravo.

 

If you've been paying attention as well, you'll have noticed that nowhere in either decision do they make mention of the sheer aspect that makes the death penalty legal to begin with: the due process clause. Considering that this case is about the death penalty, it would be essential to have brought that up as a theory of law. However, the case says nothing about said due process, which means that the government failed to bring this matter up. In other words, then, the government failed to prove the death penalty legal (which is necessary to the case), hence making the Supreme Court decision a bit easier. Had the Supreme Court been presented with said due process clause, it becomes far more difficult to argue the 8th Amendment's protection from cruel and unusual punishment, as the death penalty is considered legal. All about checks and balances here, folks.

 

That's not to say that I don't agree with the decision the Court made; I most certainly do. It's just that you need to be able to argue it rationally. Considering that this is all about the Constitution, you need to be able to present it. Just quoting the 8th Amendment doesn't make it right.

 

I wanted to highlight this section, because I think it represents everything that I have a problem with in this SC decision.

 

Well......I'm not keen on the Court's decision, period, but really.....it's HOW they came to the decision which irks me, and Wildbomb has done an excellent job of explaining the flaws in the decision.

 

The justices aren't stupid; they're some of the most intelligent men and women in our entire nation, so it's not as if they failed to argue due process due to their own incompetence. Hence, I have to agree with Scalia when he argues (and I'm paraphrasing him here with my own colloquialism) that they're pulling this decision out of their ass. Not in the sense that they're offering NO legal theory for deciding the way they did, but rather they're conveniently ignoring one important aspect of the issue because it would potentially be adverse to them reaching the decision they wanted to in the case. And that, quite frankly, just pisses me off (it pisses Scalia off too, which is a big part of why Scalia's dissents are always so much fun to read).

[SuperJerk 0]

I'd sure love it if someone would link to this wonderful Scalia decision everyone's developed a raging boner over.

[Vyce 0]

Roper v. Simmons

 

Links to concurring and dissenting opinions are at the top of the page.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Man, Wildbomb is on FIRE in this thread.

 

I never really paid any attention to any of his posts before (no offense to him, he's just not as.....colorful......as some of the other CE posters), but I'm very impressed by his arguing skills as well as his absolutely wonderful and on point dissection of the law.  Bravo, sir, bravo.

 

If you've been paying attention as well, you'll have noticed that nowhere in either decision do they make mention of the sheer aspect that makes the death penalty legal to begin with: the due process clause. Considering that this case is about the death penalty, it would be essential to have brought that up as a theory of law. However, the case says nothing about said due process, which means that the government failed to bring this matter up. In other words, then, the government failed to prove the death penalty legal (which is necessary to the case), hence making the Supreme Court decision a bit easier. Had the Supreme Court been presented with said due process clause, it becomes far more difficult to argue the 8th Amendment's protection from cruel and unusual punishment, as the death penalty is considered legal. All about checks and balances here, folks.

 

That's not to say that I don't agree with the decision the Court made; I most certainly do. It's just that you need to be able to argue it rationally. Considering that this is all about the Constitution, you need to be able to present it. Just quoting the 8th Amendment doesn't make it right.

 

I wanted to highlight this section, because I think it represents everything that I have a problem with in this SC decision.

 

Well......I'm not keen on the Court's decision, period, but really.....it's HOW they came to the decision which irks me, and Wildbomb has done an excellent job of explaining the flaws in the decision.

 

The justices aren't stupid; they're some of the most intelligent men and women in our entire nation, so it's not as if they failed to argue due process due to their own incompetence. Hence, I have to agree with Scalia when he argues (and I'm paraphrasing him here with my own colloquialism) that they're pulling this decision out of their ass. Not in the sense that they're offering NO legal theory for deciding the way they did, but rather they're conveniently ignoring one important aspect of the issue because it would potentially be adverse to them reaching the decision they wanted to in the case. And that, quite frankly, just pisses me off (it pisses Scalia off too, which is a big part of why Scalia's dissents are always so much fun to read).

Well, thanks for the nod of appreciation here. No offense taken...I know I'm not as noticeable as some of the other posters on this board. I'm sure that being one of the more quiet on the left side doesn't hurt, either. But hey, the law is something I've gotten to know pretty damn well in a very short period of time.

 

Anyways, to get back to the topical discussion that's going on here.

 

The point of the matter is not that the justices did not consider due process when they were making the decision of this case. Mr. Scalia, with his dissenting opinion, is disagreeing with the findings on the 8th Amendment. None of the justices seemingly make a mention of due process of law being an essential part to this case, which means someone, during oral arguments did not bring it up. I'd find it hard to believe that all of the justices would not make a mention of that during their deliberation of the case. Then again, perhaps they did, but we just haven't read them...seemingly, I think we've all gone after the Court's official opinion (which I posted a long ways back) and Mr. Scalia's dissent (which, while entertaining, I will disagree with all day long.)

 

It's a poorly written decision with a good theory of law buried within it, at least in my opinion and my loose interpretationalist theory of constitutional law. A hard constructionist or even a strict interpretationalist would probably disagree with me to some degree, merely based on common law and precedent.

 

--Ryan

[Jingus 0]

Aside from the whole legal mumbo-jumbo debate: MikeSC, if I read you correctly, are you actually saying that executing minors is a good idea?

[Vyce 0]

Aside from the whole legal mumbo-jumbo debate: MikeSC, if I read you correctly, are you actually saying that executing minors is a good idea?

You're making it seem as if he's advocating for the government to take some 16 year old convicted of a capital crime and putting a needle in his arm. The way the process runs, by the time a death row convict runs through all of his appeals, it's a good 10 or 20 years from the sentencing before he's executed.

 

Mike's position is that it may be appropriate, depending upon the circumstances, for a minor to be given the death penalty, knowing that they won't actually be executed until they are truly an adult.

 

It's something I think has some merit. I hate to bring up a cheap example, but I'll do so: suppose the Columbine killers had lived and were put on trial, and convicted of their crimes. Mike would likely be for the imposition of the death penalty in their case - or at least, he feels the option should be on the table to impose that sentence. And I would have to agree.

 

It's why I personally disagree with this decision from a moral and ethical standpoint, regardless of my problems with the legal theories presented, etc. I think that there are certain cases where a minor offender is guilty of a crime heinous enough to be deserving of the death penalty, I think that in many of those cases there IS sufficient mens rea, and thus I think this "they're too immature to understand their actions" position is maybe the biggest line of bullshit that someone has tried to feed me in a good, long while. In some instances, perhaps - in many, not a chance.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Way, way, way too much Scalia love in this thread.

 

I agree with the decision on an ethical basis, though even if I had the time to read all the opinions being expressed by the Supremes and agreed with him about the methodology being used here, it's still the exception and not the rule.

 

A snake is still a snake, they're just sometimes in season.

[Guest MikeSC]

Psychology has proven itself to be up for purchase to the highest bidder.

Way to invalidate an entire field of social science, Mike.

Don't blame ME for problems psychology hoisted upon itself.

Do you also wish to invalidate other fields that disagree with your points of view, or will be able to admit maybe they know something you don't?

When I have two doctors able to come up with diagnoses that are in ABSOLUTE contrast to one another with an identical set of symptoms --- then I'll insult medicine as a non-science.

 

There are parts of psychology that are legit. I do believe in the biochemical problems some people have.

 

But I don't buy a great deal of psychology.

You know, how the 10TH AMENDMENT stated.

The 10th Amendment only applies to things not listed elsewhere in the Constitution. Since cruel and unusual punishment is dealt with specfically in the 8th Amendment, the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction here.

Seeing as how the Supreme Court already legalized it --- then the states should be left with the details.

You might want to look at the powers McCain/Feingold actually gives to the gov't.

My understanding is that McCain/Feingold uses some of the same loopholes to violate the First Amendment that the FCC uses.

 

And has McCain/Feingold been upheld by the Supreme Court?

McConnell v FEC. Yup.

 

And, justifying violating the 1st Amendment because the FCC has bastardized its role is a poor defense.

Maybe the solution is not to have laws that are basically a blanket, that prevent using common sense. I am not for juveniles being executed, but at the same time, I don't really buy into "the 17 year old's brain wasn't fully developed enough to know what he was doing" notion, either.

 

What is wrong with the idea of treating things case-to-case, well I guess one would be knee-jerk emotions/reactions, but still it seems that everyone should have a case that pertains soley to their situation, and shouldn't be influenced by what someone else did some other time.

I have no beef with that.

 

The problem is --- the Supreme Court is spectacularly inefficient at doing that. They specialize in blanket rulings.

The whole "They're creating law" claim is blatantly dishonest. What's going on is that the Supreme Court is overturning a law. That is subtracting that law from the books. That is not adding a law.

No, they've decided that certain aspects of laws passed by states --- who should have the ability to make decisions on punishments --- are not what they like. And the reasoning they used was, quite frankly, so flimsy that it is hard to take it terribly seriously.

Aside from the whole legal mumbo-jumbo debate: MikeSC, if I read you correctly, are you actually saying that executing minors is a good idea?

I'm not making any blanket statements. I'm stating that the Supreme Court pulling decisions out of its ass is a major problem that we really, really do not need.

 

In THIS case, yes, executing a 17 year old is fine and dandy. I don't begin to believe that 17 year olds lack the maturity to know right from wrong.

 

Executing a 10 year old? Probably not. That is where the states should be given the ability to decide at what age the death penalty is acceptable and at what age it is not.

 

This is an issue poorly served by a Supreme Court decision.

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Psychology has proven itself to be up for purchase to the highest bidder.

Way to invalidate an entire field of social science, Mike.

Don't blame ME for problems psychology hoisted upon itself.

Do you also wish to invalidate other fields that disagree with your points of view, or will be able to admit maybe they know something you don't?

When I have two doctors able to come up with diagnoses that are in ABSOLUTE contrast to one another with an identical set of symptoms --- then I'll insult medicine as a non-science.

 

There are parts of psychology that are legit. I do believe in the biochemical problems some people have.

 

But I don't buy a great deal of psychology.

You know, how the 10TH AMENDMENT stated.

The 10th Amendment only applies to things not listed elsewhere in the Constitution. Since cruel and unusual punishment is dealt with specfically in the 8th Amendment, the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction here.

Seeing as how the Supreme Court already legalized it --- then the states should be left with the details.

You might want to look at the powers McCain/Feingold actually gives to the gov't.

My understanding is that McCain/Feingold uses some of the same loopholes to violate the First Amendment that the FCC uses.

 

And has McCain/Feingold been upheld by the Supreme Court?

McConnell v FEC. Yup.

 

And, justifying violating the 1st Amendment because the FCC has bastardized its role is a poor defense.

Maybe the solution is not to have laws that are basically a blanket, that prevent using common sense. I am not for juveniles being executed, but at the same time, I don't really buy into "the 17 year old's brain wasn't fully developed enough to know what he was doing" notion, either.

 

What is wrong with the idea of treating things case-to-case, well I guess one would be knee-jerk emotions/reactions, but still it seems that everyone should have a case that pertains soley to their situation, and shouldn't be influenced by what someone else did some other time.

I have no beef with that.

 

The problem is --- the Supreme Court is spectacularly inefficient at doing that. They specialize in blanket rulings.

The whole "They're creating law" claim is blatantly dishonest. What's going on is that the Supreme Court is overturning a law. That is subtracting that law from the books. That is not adding a law.

No, they've decided that certain aspects of laws passed by states --- who should have the ability to make decisions on punishments --- are not what they like. And the reasoning they used was, quite frankly, so flimsy that it is hard to take it terribly seriously.

Aside from the whole legal mumbo-jumbo debate: MikeSC, if I read you correctly, are you actually saying that executing minors is a good idea?

I'm not making any blanket statements. I'm stating that the Supreme Court pulling decisions out of its ass is a major problem that we really, really do not need.

 

In THIS case, yes, executing a 17 year old is fine and dandy. I don't begin to believe that 17 year olds lack the maturity to know right from wrong.

 

Executing a 10 year old? Probably not. That is where the states should be given the ability to decide at what age the death penalty is acceptable and at what age it is not.

 

This is an issue poorly served by a Supreme Court decision.

-=Mike

Because I lack the time and energy to do the wonderful point-by-point dissection that Mike is famous for, I'll just use one big damn quote.

 

Although psychology can be manipulated for money, so can many other sciences, Mike. A new anti-depressant comes out on the market, and everyone rushes toward it. A new diet? People flock to it. A "medical breakthrough" can really just be a bunch of bullshit because the people who created it have no idea what consequences their "breakthrough" may have. So saying that psychology in general is a laughable science is well, laughable.

 

If you'd like an example where two doctors came up with radically different diagnoses for the same set of symptoms, please note the following: the "arthritis" vs. "gout" vs. "bone bruise" my father had which was really a staph infection that cost him half of his foot; the diagnosis of "migraines" for one of my friends who really had a stroke...there's a few others. Medicine, along with psychology, are imperfect sciences. And doctors in both fields can be bought out.

 

Now, as for your constitutional argument: the 10th Amendment, the wonderful police powers amendment, would be the power of the states. In this case, there is only a citation of the 8th Amendment when really, there needs to be an application of either the 14th or the 5th (due process). That's what makes the death penalty legal. Now, saying that the Supreme Court already legalized it, leave it alone? Mike, the Court is able to overturn itself on any case brought in front of it. Precedent goes out the door. There are instances dating all the way back to Marbury v. Madison where the Court overturns provisions set by the government. NY Times v. Sullivan: The state legal precedent of "libel perse" is overturned due to its restrictive nature on the First Amendment. It eliminated years of standards in libel, including the case it most cites, Schenck v. United States.

 

Mike, the legal theory behind the 8th Amendment is there. The Court ruled that the 8th Amendment is a more substanitive legal theory than the 10th Amendment under these specialized terms. The Court has overturned law. They did not write law. They have only written constitutional legal theory. Granted, it was not the best written decision, but there is a sound legal theory behind it.

[Guest MikeSC]

Wildbomb, let's be honest, the Supreme Court seems to never really defer to the 10th Amendment. The Court does not seem to approve of the concept of permitting states to make these decisions.

 

This case is a situation where a blanket ruling just does not work --- and the Court gave one anyways.

 

Psychology seems to have a much bigger problem. Sanity and insanity seems to lay solely in the eye of the beholder. If somebody has cancer, then they have cancer. There's not a lot of wiggle room for that. Sanity seems to be up for the highest bidder, honestly. I, again, DO buy the problems involved with biochemical problems in the brain. But, purely behavioral problems, I'm sorry, I do not believe in.

 

Yes, there are some horrendous medical issues --- but psychology seems to be rife with it. At this point, if I were a judge, I'd have serious reservations about even allowing psychology as medical testimony.

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

While I agree that the Court rarely, if ever, defers to the 10th Amendment, it is typically because they find that the federal government is supposed to hold more power in the situation...also known as the basis of a federalist system.

 

That we could probably argue for years over and neither one of us would get anywhere with it.

 

--Ryan