Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Tony Blankley Nails It in The Washington Times

MANDATORY READING...

Black robes and betrayal

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck again -- this time overturning by a 5-4 decision, all statutes that apply the death sentence to 16- and 17-year-old murderers.
As a former prosecutor, I am convinced that from time to time juries find before them 16- or 17-year-old defendants who understand full well the vicious nature of their murders, and deserve -- after receiving the full panoply of due process -- to be fried, gassed, hanged, shot, injected or otherwise sent promptly to Hell.
Even if you are of a sympathetic nature and believe that the little 17-year-old darlings deserve to be rehabilitated, you might still find this Supreme Court opinion stomach turning for its sheer disdain of logic, public attitudes and American law.
But first: The crime, as described yesterday by Justice Anthony Kennedy in Roper v. Simmons, writing for the majority: "At the age of 17, when he was still a junior in high school, Christopher Simmons ... committed murder ... There is little doubt that Simmons was the instigator of the crime. Before its commission Simmons said he wanted to murder someone. In chilling, callous terms he talked about his plan with his friends ... Simmons proposed to commit burglary and murder by breaking and entering, tying up a victim, and throwing the victim off a bridge. Simmons assured his friends they could 'getaway with it' because they were minors." A few hours later he proceeded to do just that, breaking into a home, covering the victim's head in a towel, wrapping her up in duct tape and tying her hands and legs together with electrical wire. Then he drove her to a bridge and threw her off into the water, where helpless, she drowned.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether this presented a case of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment to our Constitution. No, the court was not concerned with whether being assaulted in your home, wrapped in a towel, duct tape and electrical wire and thrown off a bridge was cruel and unusual punishment. That's OK. The court is only concerned with whether it was cruel and unusual to execute the strapping 17-year-old murderer who did it.

The five Justices that had the concurring view showed their utter contempt and disdain for the American People and the US Constitution. What we saw yesterday was judicial activism run amok. These clowns are making it up as they go along. One wonders what bodily orifice they pulled the latest ruling out of? My guess is south of the waist line. These five individuals should be removed from the bench immediately.There needs to be some accountability from the Court to the people. We need to do away with life time appointments and look at term limits.

WSJ Editorial...
If there is a silver lining to this case, it is that it probably disqualifies Justice Kennedy from any consideration to be promoted to Chief Justice when William Rehnquist resigns. Some in Washington, and even some in the Bush Administration, have floated this possibility as a way to ensure an easy Senate confirmation. But we doubt that the red-state voters who re-elected President Bush, and gave Republicans a larger majority in the Senate, did so to promote a Justice who thinks their values are an affront to "standards of decency."

1 Comments:

At 1:20 PM, Blogger ilexia said...

At first blush I considered it inconsistent for the Court, on one hand to condone minors killing persons in the womb, yet when a minor hog-ties and throws a person off a bridge they're not mature enough to understand the consequences. But then it occurred to me the consistency is that the Court is approving a culture of death by minors.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home