A Disconcerting Supreme Court Decision

[Ripper 0]

(and if that ME Senator's bill to forbid abortion on gay babies ever passes, there might be a HUGE problem).

 

 

 

I got stuck here....

 

 

um...

 

 

What the fuck?

[2GOLD 0]

All I have to say is this...gay babies?

 

The ruling here is irrelavant since no state would have imposed the death penalty on anyone under the age of 18 anyone. And even if one did, it would have never made it through the appeals process.

[Ripper 0]

Oh okay, I had to go look that one up. The guy is trying to get rid of abortion and gay marriage so he is basically trying to force someones hand on this one. I mean you would either have to say "Hey, there is no such thing as gay babies" or say "Hey, he's right...stop the abortion" which would mean a ban on all abortions.

 

Cute.

[Guest BDC]

I read Scalia's dissent just because I had it recommended to me.

 

Wow.

 

He goes on and on about how the Court picked what supported the decision and ignored what didn't, even went so far as to point out that it referenced studies that were the exception instead of the norm in the realm of psychology about the factors in teenage minds.

 

It's a very clear and fantastically acidic read about why this decisions is bad. Judicial review is the power given to the court, determining if something is constitutional or not. It's not if it's moral or "right" as Mike has said a few times. It's constitutional. How how how they got to this decision makes my head hurt.

[EricMM 0]

Mike, would you prefer (or perhaps find it more constitutional) if all executions were deemed (redeemed?) illegal due to Cruel and Unusual?

 

Is it just the numbers game that you dislike?

[SuperJerk 0]

The ruling here is irrelavant since no state would have imposed the death penalty on anyone under the age of 18 anyone. And even if one did, it would have never made it through the appeals process.

The ruling IS based on an actual case, and there are people who this decision applies to.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Scalia is awesome, and deserving of alot of respect.

 

I agree that the judicial court system of this country is slowly over-stepping its bounds. In the court, politics, morality, opinions, have no place. Decisions are made based on the cold facts and established laws. The court clarifies the law.

 

Because the responsibility of AMENDING the constitution falls onto the legislatures of the states and the federal/executive branch. If you want to change the constitution, you do it there.

[SuperJerk 0]

Knowing "right from wrong" isn't the basis of the psychological differences.  A 7 year old knows right from wrong, but we wouldn't presume to execute them.

That's actually the standard to be executed. Hence the insane aren't executed.

Actually, I think its based on "Is this person able to fully understand the consequences of their actions."

 

 

No, the beef is that due to precedent, other states have to recognize gay marriages if one state allows them, whether they wish to or not.

 

You might want to check your source on that.

 

Thus, the only way to permit states to make their OWN decision is to officially define marriage as between a man and a woman.

You're saying the only way to make sure states can allow it is to tell them they can't allow it. I don't understand your reasoning.

 

In the court, politics, morality, opinions, have no place. Decisions are made based on the cold facts and established laws.

 

Facts can be used to form opinions. In fact, they have to be.

 

Decisions are made based on the cold facts and established laws. The court clarifies the law.

 

The court is, thus, clarifying that the law contradict's the Constitution. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

Giving people the death penalty for crimes committed when they were under 18 violates the 8th Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment.

It is cruel punishment because our society has already decided that you are not legally an adult until you are 18, because people under that age have less ability to make rational choices. Therefore, by applying adult standards to those who are not adults is unfair (hence, we have juvenile correctional facilities). To KILL THEM for it is outright cruel. It is unusual punishment because not only do most countries not do it, but most states within THIS country refuse to do it.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Giving people the death penalty for crimes committed when they were under 18 violates the 8th Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment. 

It is cruel punishment because our society has already decided that you are not legally an adult until you are 18, because people under that age have less ability to make rational choices.  Therefore, by applying adult standards to those who are not adults is unfair (hence, we have juvenile correctional facilities).  To KILL THEM for it is outright cruel.  It is unusual punishment because not only do most countries not do it, but most states within THIS country refuse to do it.

You're a fool. Do you know the origin of the phrase 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment'? It stems from British 18th century law. Look it up. By that phrase, and they clarified it, cruel and unusual punishment was defined as "punishment forbidden by law".

 

That is the correct interpretation of the 8th amendment. If anyone around here knows the constitution, it better darn well be me since I work for the Justice Department.

 

Go back, and read Scalia's dissent with an open mind. Learn something. It was not the court's duty to abolish executions under the age of 18. That is a legistlature/executive branch issue. Not judicial.

Edited March 9, 2005 by Stephen Joseph

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

Well, RobotJerk pretty much summed up what I was going to say. I'm a student of constitutional law, and I can say with ZERO reserve that the 8th amendment is applicable in this case. It sounds like MikeSC's problem is with the interpretation. People have had problem's with interpretation since the Supreme Court started gettin' down, so... big deal.

[BUTT 0]

They talked about this on Bill Maher's show last night. Surprisingly, he was against the ruling.

 

I think it's kind of dumb to say that there's a big difference between a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old. Sure, there's growth emotionally, but I've known as long as I can remember that killing is wrong. Is there really a better chance of rehabilitating a 16-year-old killer than an 18-year-old (Personally, I don't really think you can rehabilitate a killer, but that's beside the point). Not that this country shouldn't respect international opinions, but they should never affect US Supreme Court decisions.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Well, RobotJerk pretty much summed up what I was going to say. I'm a student of constitutional law, and I can say with ZERO reserve that the 8th amendment is applicable in this case. It sounds like MikeSC's problem is with the interpretation. People have had problem's with interpretation since the Supreme Court started gettin' down, so... big deal.

Obviously, you didn't read my post.

 

The interpretation that RJ gave on cruel and unusual is not the correct intpertation if you look at the origin of the phrase in British law, which is where we got it from.

[SuperJerk 0]

Do you know the origin of the phrase 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment'? It stems from British 18th century law. Look it up. By that phrase, and they clarified it, cruel and unusual punishment was defined as "punishment forbidden by law".

So we essentially have a Constitutional Amendment that outlaws stuff that's already been outlawed?

 

Somehow I fail to see the logical consistency in that.

 

The Court's interpetation has already been established as changing over time. Look it up.

 

 

You're a fool. 

 

Considering you hold Scalia in such high esteem, I wouldn't consider your opinion of what constitutes a "fool" to be worth much at all.

 

 

That is the correct interpretation of the 8th amendment. If anyone around here knows the constitution, it better darn well be me since I work for the Justice Department.

 

I didn't realize that one of the qualifications for working at the DOJ was an encyclopedic knowledge and understanding of the origins of Constitutional principles. If it is, then I feel really sorry for anyone trying to get a job there as a janitor.

 

Besides, if we're going to play the "I'm right because I have a job in the field" game, then let me point out that ALL the people on the Supreme Court with which you disagree actually work for the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM, and thus probably have an even better understanding on how to interprete laws than you do!

[Vyce 0]

Well, RobotJerk pretty much summed up what I was going to say. I'm a student of constitutional law, and I can say with ZERO reserve that the 8th amendment is applicable in this case. .

Hi there.

 

I'm a student of constitutional law as well.

 

You're right - when speaking about the Constitution, the 8th amendment IS applicable here.

 

However.....

 

Go back, and read Scalia's dissent with an open mind. Learn something. It was not the court's duty to abolish executions under the age of 18. That is a legistlature/executive branch issue. Not judicial.

 

SJ is completely correct.

 

Just because the 8th amendment is applicable most emphatically does NOT mean that the majority came up with the PROPER interpretation of the amendment.

 

And as a constitutional scholar yourself, I'm sure you're well aware of the constitutional conflicts that arise when the court oversteps its duties and takes it upon itself to do the job of the other branches of government.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Go back, and read Scalia's dissent with an open mind. Learn something. It was not the court's duty to abolish executions under the age of 18. That is a legistlature/executive branch issue. Not judicial.

 

SJ is completely correct.

 

And as a constitutional scholar yourself, I'm sure you're well aware of the constitutional conflicts that arise when the court oversteps its duties and takes it upon itself to do the job of the other branches of government.

::COUGH:: ROBOTJERK ::COUGH::

 

Read what Vyce said. Argue it, if you dare.

 

There is a separation of powers for a reason. What the court did was not in its jurisdictional right. Not ONCE have I said whether I am in favor of executions or not, I'm simply pointing out how the system was designed to work.

 

What Vyce said, is all that I am saying. It was, and is still, up to other branches to change the law. The Supreme Court clarifies the law.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If you're going to kill somebody, make sure you do it the day before you turn 18.

-=Mike

Only if you're desperate to Not Die. I don't see any decision that says that doing this would let you off scott-free without punishment. Spending the rest of your life in the penal system at that age is psychologically draining enough.

 

Between that many states don't have capital punishment, that some that do run prisoners through at a snail's pace (i.e. California), and that not many judges in the world want to apply the death penalty to kids, meaning that I don't see this decision affecting that much in the near future.

 

Regardless of the justification, I agree with the decision for ethical reasons. So leave it up to Mike to make it sound like the American decision was clearly to rule on the other side and just how wrong this whole thing is.

[SuperJerk 0]

It seems as though Stephen Joseph is arguing against the very concept of Judicial Review.

[Guest Loss]

A 16-year old who doesn't know that murder is wrong is, simply put, a menace to society. I don't agree with the death penalty at all, but interpreting this from a legal point of view without my personal biases getting in the way, the death penalty should extend itself to minors, who officially become an adult the second the touch a weapon. And if the death penalty is legal for adults, then the death penalty is legal for minors. 16-year olds are allowed to get abortions without parental consent, work and have taxes withheld, drive and even get married in most states. If we're going for consistency and accuracy, then this ruling is inconsistent and inaccurate.

 

The entire system needs an overhaul, or at least certain parts of it do, but that's an entirely different argument altogether. Based on the current system, this was the wrong decision.

[SuperJerk 0]

the death penalty should extend itself to minors, who officially become an adult the second the touch a weapon.

I wish I'd have known that when I was sixteen. That way I could have touched a gun, then went and bought some lottery tickets, smoked some cigarettes, and gone to a tittie bar.

 

16-year olds are allowed to get abortions without parental consent,

 

WHERE?

 

work and have taxes withheld, drive, and even get married in most states.

 

With their parents' permission, perhaps.

 

 

Face it, folks, 16 year olds are NOT adults. They are not considered legally to be resposible enough to do any number of things, but its okay to have them EXECUTED?

[Guest Loss]

You're no longer a child, or a human being really, when you start shooting a gun with the intent to kill someone. Your age isn't a factor at that point, or at least it shouldn't be. The grieving process is still the same for the families who lost a loved one, and the life is still terminated. It seems like you're trying to justify kids killing.

 

16-year olds can get an abortion without parental consent at just about any free clinic in the country. And *legally* (there's that key word again), no, parental consent is not required for teenagers to work or drive. In most states, consent isn't even required for the kid to marry.

 

Based on your logic, if a 19-year old kills someone, we shouldn't try him as an adult either, because he can't buy alcohol.

[NoCalMike 0]

I never clearly understood the concept that people under the age of 18, are only to be considered adults when it comes to punishment, or explaining what rights they don't get.

[{''({o..o})''} 0]

You're no longer a child, or a human being really, when you start shooting a gun with the intent to kill someone.

Yeah, you might want to rephrase that a bit.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

(and if that ME Senator's bill to forbid abortion on gay babies ever passes, there might be a HUGE problem).

I got stuck here....um...What the fuck?

I got your hook-up (so I guess you could consider abortion a hate crime in some cases if this bill got pased).

 

Link 'n stuff...

 

A Republican lawmaker in Maine has introduced a bill to prohibit abortions based on the sexual orientation of the unborn baby.

 

State Rep. Brian Duprey wants the Legislature to forbid a woman from ending a pregnancy because the fetus is homosexual.

 

He said the bill looks into the future in case scientists find what he described as a "homosexual gene."

 

"I have heard from women who told me that if they found out that they were carrying a child with the gay gene, then they would abort. I think this is wrong," said Duprey, who got the idea while listening to the Rush Limbaugh Show.

 

But some lawmakers say Duprey is neither interested in creating new policy to protect gays and lesbians nor seriously discussing the issue of abortion. The bill, they say, is a way of forcing some lawmakers to choose between abortion rights and gay rights.

 

"It will be seen as some kind of political gamesmanship," said House Majority Leader Glenn Cummings, D-Portland.

 

Last month, Duprey drew attention to the issue of gay rights when he proposed a bill to legalize same-sex marriages even though opposing it himself.

 

The Baldacci administration and homosexual activists questioned Duprey's motivation. They said the bill disrespected the legislative process and prevented them from having time to build support for the issue.

 

Senate Minority Leader Paul Davis, R-Sangerville, questioned the bill's premise. "You cannot test for it," he said.

 

After seeing the proposed legislation, Senate President Beth Edmonds, D-Freeport, and Cummings called Duprey's efforts disingenuous. They questioned why he has opposed gay rights legislation protecting adults while pushing for legislation protecting those not yet born.

 

"It is just something to get him press time. It is not a realistic proposal," Edmonds said.

 

Duprey said: "Technology is changing every day. They could map the homosexual gene tomorrow."

 

A spokesman for the governor's office told the Portland Press Herald the administration will review Duprey's bill but declined to comment on it.

 

Duprey, an opponent of abortion, said he believes support will grow for the measure, though he has no co-sponsors.

[SuperJerk 0]

You're no longer a child, or a human being really, when you start shooting a gun with the intent to kill someone.

Yeah, you might want to rephrase that a bit.

No kidding.

 

16-year olds can get an abortion without parental consent at just about any free clinic in the country. And *legally* (there's that key word again), no, parental consent is not required for teenagers to work or drive. In most states, consent isn't even required for the kid to marry.

 

Where the fuck do you live?

 

Based on your logic, if a 19-year old kills someone, we shouldn't try him as an adult either, because he can't buy alcohol.

Actually, based on my logic, they should lower the drinking age to 18.

[Special K 0]

Based on the nebulous nature of cruel and unusual, taken away from its historical phrasing, they could just up and do away with prison sentences. Hooray!

Of course many states don't have the death penalty. They made that law through the correct legislative processes. Good for them! My opposition to this is not because I'm some great lover of the death penalty, it's because the judicial branch is overstepping its bounds. It's pretty much beholden to no one, so I think it should make sweeping decisions sparingly. If (and, unfortunately when) we have a ton of very conservative judges in the court, some bad shit's going to happen because the judicial branch has been getting into the business of lawmaking.

[SuperJerk 0]

Do you honestly think that eliminating the death penalty for children is equal to giving up on punishment altogether?

[Special K 0]

No it's not equal. But neither should be up to the Supreme Court! The people have made their will clear in different states, the cruel and unusual clause is nebulous, there is not a clear preponderence of evidence to overturn the will of the people, the judicial branch is overstepping its bounds. Gosh!

[Guest Loss]

You're no longer a child, or a human being really, when you start shooting a gun with the intent to kill someone.

Yeah, you might want to rephrase that a bit.

No kidding.

I fail to see a problem with that statement.

[{''({o..o})''} 0]

Armed Forces, police officers when it's neccesary, and people defending themselves from violent intruders.

[Guest Loss]

Ok, I see your point.

 

"You're no longer a child, or a human being really, when you start shooting a gun with the intent to kill someone without provocation."