Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

The Supreme Court’s Trifecta

Joe Knippenberg brings our attention to the latest outrage by the U.S. Supreme Court and posts all the links you need. I just wanted to add this comment.

The Court seems to have violated its Constitutional obligations in three ways in this case:

1st)The Court has violated the separation of powers and once again acts as a Super Legislature substituting its will for the will of our elected law makers.

2nd)The Court has violated the principle of federalism by unjustly overturning the statutes of 19 states in this case.

3rd)And perhaps most disturbing of all, the members of the Court who have signed on to the majority opinion have violated their oath of office by, once again, deferring to International opinion and citing International Courts as a standard for their decisions. The members of the Court take an oath to support/uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Sad to see Reagan appointees join in this opinion.

Discussions - 7 Comments

Yes, several of the Justices are drunk on power. Like so many would-be reformers and visionaries, they seek to transform us "for our own good." As the poet Robinson Jeffers noted about Man: "faithful servant, insufferable master."

No single group of people have the wisdom to dictate to the rest of us. The lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court have to go...although I can’t see how that will happen.

Yeah, it certainly is an outrage that we won’t be able to have 16 and 17-year olds "fried, gassed, hanged, shot, injected or otherwise sent promptly to Hell" (as the WashTimes editorial huffed). What about YOUNGER than 16 years? Can we hold out the hope of getting one of them someday??

Now, just to be clear, is it WE humans who send ’em to Hell, or is it The Almighty who makes those sort of judgments?

But as for "judicial activism," did any of y’all see this article about the Bush-appointed judge chastising the administration that very sin? Here I thought only liberals could be judicial activists! From the article:

"(Judge) Floyd said he was not persuaded by key arguments put forward by the administration to justify its assertion that foreigners and Americans alike who are designated "enemy combatants" by the president can be detained without trial or some other form of judicial review.

Using a phrase often levied by conservatives to denigrate liberal judges, Floyd -- who was appointed by President Bush (news - web sites) to the federal bench in 2003 -- accused the administration of engaging in "judicial activism" when it asserted in court pleadings that Bush has blanket authority under the Constitution to detain Americans on U.S. soil who are suspected of taking or planning actions against the country."

Uh-oh, this judge might be in a heap of trouble, right quick!

Are you suggesting that teenagers aren’t capable of evil, or that they are incapable of committing crimes that older people would be executed for?

These decisions are to be made by the people via their legislators. You can keep the leftist sarcasm to yourself...make an argument if you have one.

Hey now, Mr. Crenshaw, I’m NOT being sarcastic. And I ain’t no "leftist" - them’s fightin’ words! If you ask me, I think sarcasm should be BANNED, like the press is banned from takin’ photos of our fighting boys returning from Iraq in caskets.

And if those crazy Supreme Court justices were going to look at the international purspektiv, they shoulda seen that plenty of freedom-loving countries like Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Kyrgystan, Rwanda, Belarus, Syria, and Congo (The DEMOCRATIC Republic of Congo!) still have the death penalty, just like we do.

Don’t ask me what’s wrong with stupid countries like Poland, Armenia, Bosnia, and Yugoslavia - they abolished it!! Madness!!!

It is not the job of the SCOTUS to create law. That is the job of our elected legislatures.

If the majority of the US wants to abolish the death penalty, they will do so. If they don’t, they won’t. That’s called democracy.

Is this hard to understand?

Bostonian - I didn’t realize that it was only an opt-out scenario. Did a majority of the U.S. ever "want" (vote for a federal initiative / demand federal legislation) to have the juvenile death penalty in the first place? So you don’t think that executing juveniles is cruel punishment? Is there ANY arbitrary age cut-off for executing them that you’d be in favor of? 8? 6?? 5?? Let me guess, once they’ve emerged from their mother’s womb, they’re eligible, right?

People who know Bob Miller here?
need icq nubmer of bob miller

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL:

Warning: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2005/03/the-supreme-courts-trifecta.php on line 603

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2005/03/the-supreme-courts-trifecta.php on line 603