0
lawrocket

SCOTUS Upholds Present Method of Lethal Injection as not "Cruel and Unusual."

Recommended Posts

Here's the opinion: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-5439.pdf

The court held - 7-2 - that the method did not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment."
Here's the makeup (with the opinion author first):
Plurality - Roberts, Kennedy, Alito
Concur - Stevens
Concur - Scalia, Thomas (and Thomas joined by Scalia)
Concur - Breyer
Dissent - Ginsburg, Souter


Comment - Justice Stevens did pretty amazing thing. He vented about his personal belief that the death penalty is unconstitutional and went on at length as to why he feels that way. Then, at the end, he wrote the following:
Quote

It does not, however, justify a refusal to respect precedents that remain a part of our law. This Court has held that the death penalty is constitutional, and has established a framework for evaluating the constitutionality of particular methods of execution. Under those precedents, whether as interpreted by THE CHIEF JUSTICE or JUSTICE GINSBURG, I am persuaded that the evidence adduced by petitioners fails to prove that Kentucky’s lethal injection protocol violates the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, I join the Court’s judgment.



You know, you gotta applaud the guy. He is the justice that really showed true grit, and provided the necessary validity of the Court's Judgment. What he did was say (to paraphrase), "I fully support abrogation of the death penalty. But, as a judge, I am bound by precedent. And the Precedent says this, so I will respect it."

Scalia's concurrence opinion was solely to argue against Stevens, which I think was legally unnecessary. However, I can see why he would look at preserving dicta of his own to counter future use of Stevens' dicta.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Justice Stevens did pretty amazing thing.



It's sad that it's "amazing" when he does the job he's supposed to do. (i.e., Judge according to the law even whether or not it's in contrast to his individual beliefs)

Quote

You know, you gotta applaud the guy. He is the justice that really showed true grit, and provided the necessary validity of the Court's Judgment. What he did was say (to paraphrase), "I fully support abrogation of the death penalty. But, as a judge, I am bound by precedent. And the Precedent says this, so I will respect it."



Though venting his personal beliefs, IMO, is also not part of his job. I don't think it validates the court any more than him just putting his decision forth relative to existing precence. His personal opinions are not relevant at all.

It would neat to see your quote simplified to this "the Law and the Precedent says this - therefore I find (result in accordance with the Law and the Precedent)"

That takes more grit. As a judge, support the law, even where you don't personally agree, and don't publish the moot opinion on it (agree or not).

But it's still nice to know examples when they follow the law in spite of personal beliefs. But I'd like to see a total absense of personal beliefs, just assessments of cases relative to existing law.

If one of the judges with the same opinion gives the same result, and DOESN'T say anything about it. That's the guy I really respect. He's not patting himself on the back. In fact, we just won't know who that guy is by definition. As it should be.


However, since so many judges cannot keep their 'feelings' out of the law. Apparently it's freaking impossible; then I do applaud his ability to stick with the job and not self righteously try to do Congress' job.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

don't think it validates the court any more than him just putting his decision forth relative to existing precence. His personal opinions are not relevant at all.



That's why I think he did an amazing thing. He stated his personal opinions - the opinions of those who would attack this ruling politically. He stated the political and personal issues involved in the debate.

Then he said (paraphrased), "But that's not how we decide. We decide on the law. And the established precedents say this."

There has NOT been a huge uproar that I would expect. I believe that it can be due, in large part, to Stevens' legally unnecessary concurrence.

Quote

As a judge, support the law, even where you don't personally agree, and don't publish the moot opinion on it (agree or not).



In my years, I have learned some things about negotiations and about positions. Stevens put out that position for all to see. He then explained that he is a true proponent of that position. And then explained why his own position fails.

When you've got somebody making a decision that he himself does not philosophically support, you give credibility to that decision.

Quote

since so many judges cannot keep their 'feelings' out of the law



Here's a judge who DID. What he sadi was not law. It is dicta. But, he said that he puts aside his personal feelings to avoid making law out of it.

Just different opinions.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Just different opinions.



No, I agree with you. I'm just sad that this is how it is.


Quote

When you've got somebody making a decision that he himself does not philosophically support, you give credibility to that decision.



this is the only thing that's disappointing. This has no bearing on 'credibility' of the decision. That (should be) based on alignment to precedence only.

But it does have bearing on the credibility of Stevens himself. I think that's what you are talking about. And I agree with that. On the surface, I'd say good for him.

Still, what about those that concurred and didn't voice a personal opinion in opposition to that? I can't say their vote or their character has any less credibility than Stevens. They just did their job.


Quote

There has NOT been a huge uproar that I would expect. I believe that it can be due, in large part, to Stevens' legally unnecessary concurrence.



In other words, Stevens was practicing politics? PR? (Hey guys, I'm on your side, but you can see my hands are tied.....) I can just see the court behind closed doors:

JR - "guys, this is going to cause a stink. I need 3 of us to concur based on history and precedence - I'll write up the dry legalese on it, it's solid and we all know it."

"But, if we all just come out that way, we'll get lambasted - Can a couple of you just come out with an opinion that concurs but says it's a waste of time?"

Thomas "I'll do that"
Scalia "I'm with Thomas"

JR "No shit, Scalia. You always are"

"Now, I need one guy to say he hates the practice but also concurs because THAT IS OUR JOB. That'll placate the masses out there clinging to their guns and their faith"

Stevens - "Me. I know just the thing. Short and sweet"

JR - "Ok, that leave 1 or 2 of you to put forth the obligatory dissent for those that don't care about precedence but just want it their way without due legislative process. How about you 2?"

.....
.
.
.



Honestly, good on Stevens. And if he feels strongly enough about it to use himself as an example, I believe he's doing it for the right reasons too, not just to pat himself on the back. (though I still prefer to take the cynical interpretation - it's more fun)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Comment - Justice Stevens did pretty amazing thing. He vented about his personal belief that the death penalty is unconstitutional and went on at length as to why he feels that way. Then, at the end, he wrote the following:

Quote

It does not, however, justify a refusal to respect precedents that remain a part of our law. This Court has held that the death penalty is constitutional, and has established a framework for evaluating the constitutionality of particular methods of execution. Under those precedents, whether as interpreted by THE CHIEF JUSTICE or JUSTICE GINSBURG, I am persuaded that the evidence adduced by petitioners fails to prove that Kentucky’s lethal injection protocol violates the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, I join the Court’s judgment.



You know, you gotta applaud the guy. He is the justice that really showed true grit, and provided the necessary validity of the Court's Judgment. What he did was say (to paraphrase), "I fully support abrogation of the death penalty. But, as a judge, I am bound by precedent. And the Precedent says this, so I will respect it."



I've been thinking about this, and I strongly disagree with you. You have the typical lawyers view of things as a kind of game played out by gladiators in the arena.

Stevens said, in effect, that killing people is WRONG but he's going to vote to kill people anyway, because in the past a majority had voted for it.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I've been thinking about this, and I strongly disagree with you. You have the typical lawyers view of things as a kind of game played out by gladiators in the arena.



And how is that different from your behavior on gun control debate? You act very much like Stevens- claiming to hold one belief yet acting consistently in the opposite viewpoint.

Or do you believe that an internet forum is fine for trolling, but a Supreme Court Justice should not play that way?

The question wasn't about the good or bad of the death penalty. The question before him only addressed the question of the 8th amendment versus lethal injection. Personally, I found the question ridiculous - it's hard to imagine a less cruel method of execution given the past choices of firing squad (Utah), gas chambers, guillotines,...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really think the SCOTUS is comparable to an internet discussion forum? Really?

If you took the time to read my posts you would see that I am very consistent on the topic of guns. I just take a position that you are apparently unable to comprehend.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You have the typical lawyers view of things as a kind of game played out by gladiators in the arena.



He don't know me very well, do he? Professor - you know me better than that.

Quote

Stevens said, in effect, that killing people is WRONG but he's going to vote to kill people anyway, because in the past a majority had voted for it.



In other words, he did what a judge is supposed to do. Stevens DID say that he thinks killing people is wrong. But his job is NOT to decide whether it is right or wrong - that is a political question. His job is to determine whether the method was constitutional.

Despite his personal issues with it, he decided according to the Constitution. The past judges have all found it Constitutional. And while the views of society has changed, the Constitution - and the views redaring it - have not.

We can't have judges nullifying things just because they don't like them. He said he doesn't like it but that's not enough.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Do you really think the SCOTUS is comparable to an internet discussion forum? Really?



Hypocrisy doesn't have a sense of scale. It just is.

Quote


If you took the time to read my posts you would see that I am very consistent on the topic of guns.



Just like "Hunter" Hillary, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

You have the typical lawyers view of things as a kind of game played out by gladiators in the arena.



He don't know me very well, do he? Professor - you know me better than that.

Quote

Stevens said, in effect, that killing people is WRONG but he's going to vote to kill people anyway, because in the past a majority had voted for it.



In other words, he did what a judge is supposed to do. Stevens DID say that he thinks killing people is wrong. But his job is NOT to decide whether it is right or wrong - that is a political question. His job is to determine whether the method was constitutional.

Despite his personal issues with it, he decided according to the Constitution. The past judges have all found it Constitutional. And while the views of society has changed, the Constitution - and the views redaring it - have not.

We can't have judges nullifying things just because they don't like them. He said he doesn't like it but that's not enough.



How do you square that position with precedents like the Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson?

The precedent set in the Dred Scott decision was never overruled. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments resolved the issue. The precedent still stands.

In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court ruled that "seperate but equal" facilities were constitutional. Another example of precedent being flat out wrong. It took 58 years for that one to begin to be corrected.

The only first world country that has capital punishment is the USA. It is pathetic that the country that is supposedly the harbinger of freedom for the world is so backwards on this issue. Civilized countries do not execute their citizens.

Cynthia Sommer might have something to say about prosecutorial errors. There have been a lot of folks who were on death row that have been exonerated by DNA testing. How many innocent people have been executed?

I completely disagree that Stevens deserves respect for his blind adherence to precedent. To me, it shows a profound lack of character on his part. He knows what is right, but does nothing to make changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The precedent set in the Dred Scott decision was never overruled. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments resolved the issue. The precedent still stands.



No. The precedent has been "superceded" by amendment.

Put simply, Dred Scott was a fucked up decision. So we amended the Constitution to fix it. We used the system that was set up to do that. Doing so was a political question, not judicial.

Quote

In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court ruled that "seperate but equal" facilities were constitutional. Another example of precedent being flat out wrong.



Yep. Wrong. Morally wrong. Constitutionally? They had some good reason to rule that way.

What solution would you prefer? Amending the Constitution to fix it? Ot, trusting a bunch of judges to fix it?

I'll put it this way - Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy and Souter. Republican nominees on the SCOTUS.

I'll ask you - what would YOU think of a judge who believes that the 4th Amendment must be constrained in this world of terrorist threats? Let's imagine that this judge has 5 other judges who agree with him.

Should we get rid of 200 years of 4th Amendment jurisprudence because some judges believe it appropriate given present threats? PLENTY of people in the US believe that random searches are okay if you've got nothing to hide. Why not have judges reflect the will of the people?

BEcause judges are a check on the will of the people. Tha Patriot Act was the "will of the people." So were Jim Crow laws.

I find it abhorrent when judges take 200 years of understanding and say, "that doesn't work today. We will find something new." It is an abomination.

Practically speaking, here's what it means, dude. It means that you will have ZERO idea what the limits on your conduct - or the government's conduct - are.

Let's say that the SCOTUS decides to hear a case regarding a person who was arrested for failing to cooperate with a police investigation because he closed the door on sheriff's deputies attempting to search his residence without a warrant.

Ker v. California stands for the principle that the states must also respect the 4th Amendment. You know cops need warrants. We ALL know cops need warrants.

But given today's situation, there is such a danger with the warrant requirement. So the SCOTUS decides to ignore precedent (only 45 years old) and rule that local police DO NOT need warrants. The public opinion is that crime has gotten SO out of control that this is necessary. Therefore, we should ignore established precedent and move forward with it.

THIS is exactly what a court should avoid. I mean, how would this guy know that the cops don't need a warrant anymore? He is in trouble because he acted in accordance with the law as it existed. When the judge changes the law, there is no notice to people about how to behave.

Quote

Civilized countries do not execute their citizens.



I disagree wholeheartedly with capital punishment as it is being doled out today. But that it a political question. That is up to the states. And up to the Congress to change that. It is NOT the role of the courts.

Quote

Cynthia Sommer might have something to say about prosecutorial errors. There have been a lot of folks who were on death row that have been exonerated by DNA testing. How many innocent people have been executed?



Be like New Jersey. They recently banned it. Good on them.

Quote

I completely disagree that Stevens deserves respect for his blind adherence to precedent.



I think you are kidding yourself. You would appreciate "blind adherence to precedent" by a judge that espouses your viewpoint. i.e., "blind adherence" to Brown v. Board of Education. What would you think of a judge that goes against the grain because, well, he feels it is the wrong decision considering the ? You'd despise the guy.

I have mentioned often on this forums - for years - that I am a staunch proponent of process. The process must be correct.

The Warran court, for example, did many things that, politically, I applaud. However, the way they did it was, to me, often specious. That court wanted to implement societal change.

It is not the job of a court to legislate! It is the job of a court to interpret. The legislatures should pass laws banning capital punishment. They are free to do so.

if the will of the people is that the death penalty should be banned, then the Constitution can be amended.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The precedent set in the Dred Scott decision was never overruled. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments resolved the issue. The precedent still stands.



No. The precedent has been "superceded" by amendment.

Put simply, Dred Scott was a fucked up decision. So we amended the Constitution to fix it. We used the system that was set up to do that. Doing so was a political question, not judicial.

Quote

In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court ruled that "seperate but equal" facilities were constitutional. Another example of precedent being flat out wrong.



Yep. Wrong. Morally wrong. Constitutionally? They had some good reason to rule that way.

What solution would you prefer? Amending the Constitution to fix it? Ot, trusting a bunch of judges to fix it?

I'll put it this way - Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy and Souter. Republican nominees on the SCOTUS.

I'll ask you - what would YOU think of a judge who believes that the 4th Amendment must be constrained in this world of terrorist threats? Let's imagine that this judge has 5 other judges who agree with him.

Should we get rid of 200 years of 4th Amendment jurisprudence because some judges believe it appropriate given present threats? PLENTY of people in the US believe that random searches are okay if you've got nothing to hide. Why not have judges reflect the will of the people?

BEcause judges are a check on the will of the people. Tha Patriot Act was the "will of the people." So were Jim Crow laws.

I find it abhorrent when judges take 200 years of understanding and say, "that doesn't work today. We will find something new." It is an abomination.

Practically speaking, here's what it means, dude. It means that you will have ZERO idea what the limits on your conduct - or the government's conduct - are.

Let's say that the SCOTUS decides to hear a case regarding a person who was arrested for failing to cooperate with a police investigation because he closed the door on sheriff's deputies attempting to search his residence without a warrant.

Ker v. California stands for the principle that the states must also respect the 4th Amendment. You know cops need warrants. We ALL know cops need warrants.

But given today's situation, there is such a danger with the warrant requirement. So the SCOTUS decides to ignore precedent (only 45 years old) and rule that local police DO NOT need warrants. The public opinion is that crime has gotten SO out of control that this is necessary. Therefore, we should ignore established precedent and move forward with it.

THIS is exactly what a court should avoid. I mean, how would this guy know that the cops don't need a warrant anymore? He is in trouble because he acted in accordance with the law as it existed. When the judge changes the law, there is no notice to people about how to behave.

Quote

Civilized countries do not execute their citizens.



I disagree wholeheartedly with capital punishment as it is being doled out today. But that it a political question. That is up to the states. And up to the Congress to change that. It is NOT the role of the courts.

Quote

Cynthia Sommer might have something to say about prosecutorial errors. There have been a lot of folks who were on death row that have been exonerated by DNA testing. How many innocent people have been executed?



Be like New Jersey. They recently banned it. Good on them.

Quote

I completely disagree that Stevens deserves respect for his blind adherence to precedent.



I think you are kidding yourself. You would appreciate "blind adherence to precedent" by a judge that espouses your viewpoint. i.e., "blind adherence" to Brown v. Board of Education. What would you think of a judge that goes against the grain because, well, he feels it is the wrong decision considering the ? You'd despise the guy.

I have mentioned often on this forums - for years - that I am a staunch proponent of process. The process must be correct.

The Warran court, for example, did many things that, politically, I applaud. However, the way they did it was, to me, often specious. That court wanted to implement societal change.

It is not the job of a court to legislate! It is the job of a court to interpret. The legislatures should pass laws banning capital punishment. They are free to do so.

if the will of the people is that the death penalty should be banned, then the Constitution can be amended.


What a tremdous post!!!!

There is a political party that loves having judges "fix" what THEY see as wrong. This could however go both ways if things keep going they way they are.

The strength of the country depends on judges who rule under the law and the constitution. If someone does not agree with this they need only review cases ruled on by the 9th Circit Court of Apeals. There they can see the danger quite clearly. (the latest case on home schooling is a great example.

Thanks lawrocket:)
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

You have the typical lawyers view of things as a kind of game played out by gladiators in the arena.



He don't know me very well, do he? Professor - you know me better than that.

Quote

Stevens said, in effect, that killing people is WRONG but he's going to vote to kill people anyway, because in the past a majority had voted for it.



In other words, he did what a judge is supposed to do. Stevens DID say that he thinks killing people is wrong. But his job is NOT to decide whether it is right or wrong - that is a political question. His job is to determine whether the method was constitutional.

Despite his personal issues with it, he decided according to the Constitution. The past judges have all found it Constitutional. And while the views of society has changed, the Constitution - and the views redaring it - have not.

We can't have judges nullifying things just because they don't like them. He said he doesn't like it but that's not enough.



Of course, precedent has NEVER been overturned because the previous justices were always 100% correct.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Quote


If you took the time to read my posts you would see that I am very consistent on the topic of guns.



Just like "Hunter" Hillary, right?



I guess you never bothered actually to read anything I wrote on the topic. Oh well!
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

precedent has NEVER been overturned because the previous justices were always 100% correct.



"100% correct?" In what way do you mean "correct?"

Politically correct? Obviously, people thought it "correct" or they wound't have made the decisions.

That's why there are nine justices. There is the opportunity to dissent or concur.

The doctrine of stare decisis is important in law. We use it because you want judges to rule in a predictable manner.

Not that it doesn't happen, though. With the Constitution, the SCOTUS is more likely to reverse itself. (I think it has reversed itself about 150 times since 1938).

But consider this - during the Alito hearings, there was a great deal of questioning by Democratic Senators about his respect for stare decisis because they don't want him acting as a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

So, should judges work toward overturning any and all cases? Or, just the cases that you think should be overturned?

I believe myself to be intellectually honest with this. I don't want courts reversing themselves, regardless of whether I "feel" that they should be reversed. I'd prefer to work within a known framework of rules - not rules subject to change at any time.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can someone enlighten me WTF this phrase means

Quote


Quote

... has established a framework for evaluating the constitutionality of particular methods of execution.




I can easily come up with "frameworks" that will determine methods of the Spanish Inquisition not to be cruel and unusual -- as well as many things that the US government did to its citizens over history which are deplored today.

Do they have some fancy algorithms or a computer that spits out "only mildly cruel" when you enter a form of punishment?

Cheers, T
*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Here's the question for those who believe that capital punishment is unconstitutional:

How can capital punishment be unconstitutional when the constitution specifically mentions it?

Here is the 5th Amendment:

Quote

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



Oh. Capital punishment is unconstitutional.

Let me guess, unwarranted searches and seizures are unconstitutional, too. :S

Quote

I can easily come up with "frameworks" that will determine methods of the Spanish Inquisition not to be cruel and unusual



Cool. But the Constitution, and the cases that have been followed, do not.

The SCOTUS "has held that the Eighth Amendment forbids“punishments of torture, . . . and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty,” Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U. S. 130, 136, such as disemboweling, beheading, quartering, dissecting, and burning alive, all of which share the deliberate infliction of pain for the sake of pain, id., at 135. Observing also that “[p]unishments are cruel when they involve
torture or a lingering death[,] . . . something inhuman and barbarous [and] . . . more than the mere extinguishment of life,.."

Thn again, that's stare decisis looking at us right there. Some people believe that just because the courts have thought that in the past does not mean that the courts should actually pay heed to it. And since that was from a 1878 case, we know that society is different now.

Let's just re-examine it and overrule it, right?


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The framework is defined by the language in the Constitution itself and the cases that have interpreted and construed it.

In this case, the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Cases construing this make that determination.

The petitioners in this case agreed that the method, if done properly, is not cruel or unusual. But "COULD" be if done improperly.

But given the "established framework" this is not enough. They must establish a subtantial or objectively intolerable risk of serious harm. And that they did not show that the risk of pain from a misadministration of the drugs was cruel and unusual punishment.

There's the framework.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Should we get rid of 200 years of 4th Amendment jurisprudence because some judges believe it appropriate given .........
.
.
.
a political question. That is up to the states. And up to the Congress to change that. It is NOT the role of the courts.......
.
.
.
.

..... I am a staunch proponent of process. The process must be correct.....
.
.
..
.
.
.It is not the job of a court to legislate! It is the job of a court to interpret..
.
.
.



wow, JC, wow

I wanted to quote from that post things I thought were outstanding, but then I found I'd just have to quote the ENTIRE POST.

I find it very sad that people are so arrogant in their subjective social positions, that they expect judges to violate the constitution for things they personally want changed (but only that stuff, not stuff they want left alone, why that would be an abomination).

But other than Rush's approval of your post, I find that attitude is not political party sensitive - even if it's more obtuse on one side. We can list inappropriate and illegal judicial activism that fits stereotypes of positions across the political spectrum.

Knowing this, I find myself more enthusiastic about a judge being obtuse about it (though I still consider someone quietly and effectively doing their job to be more honorable). Apparently it's needed, since so many just don't get the idea of justice and confuse it with their own self righteousness on random topics.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Should we get rid of 200 years of 4th Amendment jurisprudence because some judges believe it appropriate given .........
.
.
.
a political question. That is up to the states. And up to the Congress to change that. It is NOT the role of the courts.......
.
.
.
.

..... I am a staunch proponent of process. The process must be correct.....
.
.
..
.
.
.It is not the job of a court to legislate! It is the job of a court to interpret..
.
.
.



wow, JC, wow

I wanted to quote from that post things I thought were outstanding, but then I found I'd just have to quote the ENTIRE POST.

I find it very sad that people are so arrogant in their subjective social positions, that they expect judges to violate the constitution for things they personally want changed (but only that stuff, not stuff they want left alone, why that would be an abomination).

But other than Rush's approval of your post, I find that attitude is not political party sensitive - even if it's more obtuse on one side. We can list inappropriate and illegal judicial activism that fits stereotypes of positions across the political spectrum.

Knowing this, I find myself more enthusiastic about a judge being obtuse about it (though I still consider someone quietly and effectively doing their job to be more honorable). Apparently it's needed, since so many just don't get the idea of justice and confuse it with their own self righteousness on random topics.



Members of the SCOTUS are not **just** judges. SCOTUS tells us what the Constitution means. A SCOTUS member is perfectly within his jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Members of the SCOTUS are not **just** judges. SCOTUS tells us what the Constitution means. A SCOTUS member is perfectly within his jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution.



SCOTUS tells us ('interprets' if you will, though that word is twisted in these conversations) what the constitution was 'intended' to mean by the authors, and how that's been validated through review history, and perhaps gives that in today's context with contemporary reviews.

SCOTUS does not change the entire intent of the meaning based on personal and subjective biases/opinions in complete disregard to the establish history of understanding.

That level of change must come from legislative processes only. The MOST a judge should do in this area is to: 1 - uphold the law as written; 2 - if he has an issue with that law, chastize it and send to the legislature for legal change.

So you'd be perfectly happy to allow, then, if the SCOTUS chose to unilaterally decide that it's just fine for unwarranted and random home searches of anybody that has access to aircraft fuel, or model rocket propulsion chemicals. Just because over half of them thinks it's "just the right thing to do".

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Comment - Justice Stevens did pretty amazing thing. He vented about his personal belief that the death penalty is unconstitutional and went on at length as to why he feels that way. Then, at the end, he wrote the following:

Quote

It does not, however, justify a refusal to respect precedents that remain a part of our law. This Court has held that the death penalty is constitutional, and has established a framework for evaluating the constitutionality of particular methods of execution. Under those precedents, whether as interpreted by THE CHIEF JUSTICE or JUSTICE GINSBURG, I am persuaded that the evidence adduced by petitioners fails to prove that Kentucky’s lethal injection protocol violates the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, I join the Court’s judgment.



It appears to me as though he was implying that currently the law is unjust, but not un-Constitutional (at least not based on the merits of the arguments presented), so it is the Legislative branch that needs to step up to remedy the situation.

I don't see anything wrong with such editorializing, especially from a Justice capable of recognizing the difference between his personal opinion and his judicial opinion. In fact, I think such editorializing can be a good thing.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It appears to me as though his personal stated opinion was that currently the law is unjust, but not un-Constitutional (at least not based on the merits of the arguments presented), so it is the Legislative branch that needs to step up to remedy the situation.

I don't see anything wrong with such editorializing, especially from a Justice capable of recognizing the difference between his personal opinion and his judicial opinion. In fact, I think such editorializing can be a good thing.



A+ :D with the one adjust

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0