[redmenace]

Finally Judge with some brains.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050315/ap_on_go_su_co/scalia_1

By Hope Yen, Associated Press
"If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again," Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. "You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility."

"Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?" he said.

Scalia, who has been mentioned as a possible chief justice nominee should Chief Justice William Rehnquist retire, outlined his judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution according to its text, as understood at the time it was adopted.

Exactly...

[Rictor]

OK seriously man, thats not even funny. You just gave me a mini heart attack when I read the headline.

Scalia as Chief Justice?
I shudder to think.

[Rictor]

He blamed Chief Justice Earl Warren, who presided from 1953-69 over a court that assaulted racial segregation and expanded individual rights against arbitrary government searches, for the increased political role of the Supreme Court, citing Warren's political background. Warren was governor of California and the Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948.

Ahem.  I don't think someone who is close friends with Dick Cheney (remember when they went duck hunting together the day before the Supreme Court was supposed to rule on the legality of some administrration actions? )and see nothing wrong when people are held in complete contravention of due process of law would really be a appropriate. For conflict of interest first, and a lack of basic morality second.

I thought you would have realized by now redmenace, ****ing over the Consititution is not limited to one party. They both see the Consitition as a nuisance to be avoided and undermined, rather than as an important bulwark against tyranny, because they both want greater power in the hands of the government, which is exactly what the Consitition is there to prohibit.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Rictor
Ahem.  I don't think someone who is close friends with Dick Cheney (remember when they went duck hunting together the day before the Supreme Court was supposed to rule on the legality of some administrration actions? )and see nothing wrong when people are held in complete contravention of due process of law would really be a appropriate. For conflict of interest first, and a lack of basic morality second.

They are allowed to be friends. Unless there is actual proof that dick cheney had influence over Scalia, there is no impropriety. Surely from a political standpoint they should be careful as to not create the appearence of evil. I also happen to know that he spends time with Republican intelligencia, such as Juan Williams. One of the reasons i support him for supreme justice is that he actually struck a nerve with me. I hate the ignoring of states rights and the super supremacy of the Federal Gov't. Of the current contents of the Supreme Court, I would prefer him over all the rest including Clarence Thomas.

I thought you would have realized by now redmenace, ****ing over the Consititution is not limited to one party. They both see the Consitition as a nuisance to be avoided and undermined, rather than as an important bulwark against tyranny, because they both want greater power in the hands of the government, which is exactly what the Consitition is there to prohibit.

Oh believe me, both parties with to trump the constitution. I fully understand that. I would not have come to the conclusions about politics I have without making that conclusion.

[Drew]

kazan is gonna have coniptions

[vyper]

It's as I've said before during my few insightful moments around here: True evil is not defined by the acts of men who would seek to take away our rights, liberties and freedoms - it is the single act of allowing those men to act with impunity that is true evil.

Carry on children.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by redmenace

They are allowed to be friends. Unless there is actual proof that dick cheney had influence over Scalia, there is no impropriety. Surely from a political standpoint they should be careful as to not create the appearence of evil. I also happen to know that he spends time with Republican intelligencia, such as Juan Williams. One of the reasons i support him for supreme justice is that he actually struck a nerve with me. I hate the ignoring of states rights and the super supremacy of the Federal Gov't. Of the current contents of the Supreme Court, I would prefer him over all the rest including Clarence Thomas.
 

C'mon, be reasonable. The three branches of government are meant to keep each other in check, which means they're supposed to be adverserial. When the head of the Judicial branch is a close personal friend of the head of the Execuive branch, that means they're going to go easy on each other and not do their job. Actually, this is a general problem, since in theory Supreme Court judges ought to be devoid of any political ideology, but in this case is especially worrisome.

You can support state's rights (which I do), without necessarily supporting Scalia or even the GOP. If its judicial independence you're after, you're looking in the wrong place, he's just as willing (actually, more so than any other judge right now) to forego his actual job, upholding the Consititution, in order to support his patrons and their idealogical fancies.

[redmenace]

Its a problem of the pick of the litter. Also, Two people can be profesional and friends at the same time. Chances are that he would have voted in favor of the administration regaurdless. I should also mention that a Chief justice can be a new justice. It is just easier and better to appoint a current justice. But again, believe me, I hate judicial activism and legislating from the bench. They [judiciary] are meant to interpret the constitution and the law in a general manner and not meant to make exceptions and provisos. The most stunning example is the Florida Supreme Court. Not saying either way about the outcome of  Bush vs. Gore. And while we are on the subject, I think that abortion for example belongs strictly in the hands of the individual states.

But I wonder some days how we ever got to this point?

[aldo_14]

I think that you'd find that 'strict constitutionalists' and 'revisalists' (or whatever the opposite term is) both twist the meaning & intent of the Constitution to suit their own prejudices.

I do find it stunning that anyone could criticise the removal of the juvenile death penalty, though.  In pretty much every other country in the world - only 6 other nations practice it*  - I'd imagine+ it was & is considered pretty barbaric (aside from the entire capital punishment debate).  That whole decision strikes me as being more of an endorsement of reinterpretation (if it is in fact that, and not simply a different viewpoint).

(as an aside, I can't see why the Constitution shouldn't be open to reinterpretation - it's a document drawn up a long time ago, and there has been vast societal and international changes since.  Unless you want to perpetually try to hold society in a Victorian era state, some of it will most likely have to be acknowledged as anachronistic)

I suspect that, whichever candidate is selected will be done so politically (and both parties would do this); I can't help but wonder if it's the fairest thing to allow political control of any sort over the chief judiciary, because no administration will shoot itself in the foot by choosing a dissenter.


*these paragons of human rights are;  Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Iran.  Before outlawed this year, the US was highest.
+because I can't be arsed looking up any surveys....slight generalisation / exaggeration, but I believe it is definately true for the 'developed' world.

[redmenace]

Basically, the document can be changed. If it is open to interpetation than what is the purpose of the admendment process. It is difficult to do this[admend it]. But that lends to its genious. The constitution is meant to protect and to aid stability and to make sure the hickups in political thought don't bring down the nation.

[Mongoose]

aldo, the opposal to the juvenile death penalty case wasn't specifically about the issue of administering capital punishment to minors.  It was the fact that the majority opinion stated that, since "changing standards of morality" had led to the juvenile death penalty's abolition in many other countries, the United States should follow suit.  I don't want to offend any foreign members, but there is no way, no way, that the laws of other nations should affect the interpretation of United States constitutional law, which is what the justices are supposed to do. This isn't the constitution of the United Nations (yes, I know that doesn't exist; it's an analogy), this is the United States Constitution.  There is no way in hell that justices should be able to justify their decisions based on the laws of other countries.  I'm against juvenile capital punishment as much as anyone, but I feel that this court's decision was wrong and overstepped the boundaries of the judicial branch of government.

[Rictor]

Mongoose, if 95% of the world thinks one thing, and your country thinks another, don't you think that its worthy of at least entertaining the idea that your country may be wrong.

For whatever reason, the decision was a no brainer. AFAIK, the US was one of only a hanfdul of nations to still have capital punishment for minors, in such esteemed company as Saudi Arabia and Iran.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Mongoose
aldo, the opposal to the juvenile death penalty case wasn't specifically about the issue of administering capital punishment to minors.  It was the fact that the majority opinion stated that, since "changing standards of morality" had led to the juvenile death penalty's abolition in many other countries, the United States should follow suit.  I don't want to offend any foreign members, but there is no way, no way, that the laws of other nations should affect the interpretation of United States constitutional law, which is what the justices are supposed to do. This isn't the constitution of the United Nations (yes, I know that doesn't exist; it's an analogy), this is the United States Constitution.  There is no way in hell that justices should be able to justify their decisions based on the laws of other countries.  I'm against juvenile capital punishment as much as anyone, but I feel that this court's decision was wrong and overstepped the boundaries of the judicial branch of government.

Actually, it was 'changing ideas of morality' that was the key aspect for me.  I believe no document should be regarded as sacrosanct to questioning; and the judiciarys' role is safeguard it from negative amendment.

Morality, and society, do change; it's the responsiblity of the legal system - within reason - to account for those.  I would also regard it as 'cruel' punishment, which I believe is prohibited under the Constitution.

Also, I believe juvenile execution is probably against the UN convention of Human Rights, which I would weigh as the more important document vis-a-vis the constitution of any nation.

[redmenace]

As per the death penalty to minors...if a minor walk in to school and kills 15 people on a killing spree, barring insanity, he should die, frankly. Giving some one mercy strictly on age is insane. The interpretation of the constitution should be strictly interpreted and not pay hedence to what every one else is doing. If every one else is changed the law maybe we should use legislative means instead of five lawyers deciding it unconstitutional based on their feelings instead of actual law. Same goes for the Restatements of Law put out by the scholarly groups. They should be ignored since they are not law. The means to change the law is there, they should be used.

In closing, allowing 9 lawyers to decide decisions such as this is ludicrous. It defeats the purpose of the safe guards build in to the constitution.

[Rictor]

So, raping a 5 year old is the same as raping a 25 year old? Beating a child is the same as beating an adult?

Just so we're clear...

[redmenace]

Death penalty is rarely given out to rapists and the same for beating. But yes raping a 5 yo is the same as raping a 25 yo. Only a 5 yo you get a whole lot of extra charges in addition to whatever you get for rape.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by redmenace
As per the death penalty to minors...if a minor walk in to school and kills 15 people on a killing spree, barring insanity, he should die, frankly.

So what you're saying is that someone is old enough to know the consequences of his actions at the age of 15 if it relates to killing people but only old enough to know them when it regards sex at 18 and only old enough to know them regarding alcohol at 21?

Seems pretty stupid to me. If you're going to say that a 15 year old is responsible for his actions at that age then you have to lower the age of majority across the board.

[aldo_14]

Exactly what kara said.

The reason for different juvenile punishments is not age bias or some desire to 'protect' children, but because under 18s have a less well formed ability to understand the consequences of their actions.  Yes, it is possible that - for example - a 17 year old could be fully aware... but it's not impossible either that they wouldn't be; so you need a blanket age of full responsibility, and that is 18.

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by Rictor
Mongoose, if 95% of the world thinks one thing, and your country thinks another, don't you think that its worthy of at least entertaining the idea that your country may be wrong.

For whatever reason, the decision was a no brainer. AFAIK, the US was one of only a hanfdul of nations to still have capital punishment for minors, in such esteemed company as Saudi Arabia and Iran.

You're most likely right, and as I said above, I am against the juvenile death penalty myself, but I still feel that this decision was incorrect.  First of all (and I'm not making reference to this particular case, but simply generalizing), changing a country's policy simply because "everyone else is doing it" really isn't the best justification.  Just because a majority feels that a certain position is correct doesn't make it so.  I'm not trying to infer that America is always right by any means; I'm simply stating that a global majority opinion isn't sufficient to enact policy change.  Secondly, and more importantly, while world opinion could prove to be more of a factor in the actions of the executive branch, and possibly even the legislative, in my opinion, the judicial branch should not give it any heed.  The job of the Supreme Court justices is to decide cases based on the constitutionality of a certain law, based on what is in the actual Constitution or an interpretation of said document (depending on strict vs. loose constructionalism).  That's it.  The Court's job is not to evaluate law based on international opinion.  The fact that that phrase showed up in the majority opinion made me do an about-face on my opinion of this particular case.  While the result of the case decision may be for the best, the proceedings of the case fell outside the jurisdiction of the Court.

[aldo_14]

Why, is there popular support for juvenile execution in the US itself?