1.in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional [on the basis of "cruel and unusual punishment," Anthony Kennedy writing the decision] the imposition of the death penalty as punishment for the rape of minors.

2. in another 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court, ruling on  a 2nd amendment case found that individuals have a constitutional right to possess firearms, a right not restricted to membership in a state militia or the National Guard.

3. the US is removing the political black hole otherwise known as North Korea, from it's list of official sponsors of terrorism, this in reaction to NK's delivery to the PRC of documentation re NK's nuclear program.

Yet, no comment from the group. I would think these would be like red meat to hungry wolves. I can explain my dereliction, as i was too busy counting JackO's posts.



death penalty decision:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26scotus.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin


2nd Amendment decision:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?hp


impact?  of the decision:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27guns.html?hp


those NK commies :

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/world/asia/27nuke.html?hp

-- Modified on 6/26/2008 7:12:24 PM

In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy cited "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society"

which begs further questions of Justice Kennedy...  Who says that standards "evolve?"  and who says that we are now a more mature society than 70 years ago?  Kennedy??  

That a group of few individuals would espouse such arrogance is beyond me.  I would challenge Justice Kennedy to help me understand this statement in the face of several issues wherein our societal leadership is tragically morally flawed..  (IMHO!)  Double standards - exist in our government as they have existed at no time in the past.  The inequality between the governed and the government is huge and yet our "leadership" does nothing to address that inequality.  

Were I Justice Kennedy - I would hide in shame from my words... for while I do not disagree with the ruling, it is how he got to the ruling that I find particularly offensive.   We are all, after all, only human.

-- Modified on 6/26/2008 12:42:49 PM

this might be a somewhat digressed response, but don't you think that the supreme court has lately been trying to amend our constitution? they're supposed to be in the business of upholding the constitution, not amending.

Amendment should be written that those who molest children will have a cement block tied to their feet and dropped in the ocean perferably off the coast of San Francisco. A bouy will mark this gravesite, signalling to the world, we do not tolerate child molesters.

#2. I am glad that if the gestapo kick down on my front door I have the right to bear arms. OORAH!!

#3, OOORah again to the Bush Adminstration, the Axis of evil is on the run. Libya dropped their nuclear arms program and so has North Korea. Iran is capitulating unless of course if Obama wins. Then all the good efforts performed by this adminstration will be for naught.

I wonder if the judge that wrote that considered the "cruel & unusual punishment" inflicted on the minors as they were being raped; most likely not!

child molesters should be permanently removed from our society.  They are a cancer that can't be cured.  You can't cure them, only contain them.  I'm all for putting a bullet in the back of their heads.  Only that way, will we be assured that they won't ruin another child's life.

Ask yourself what a child's life is worth?  

-- Modified on 6/26/2008 1:08:16 PM

This complete dolt gets a free pass because he's very liberal..which of course makes him smart in the eyes of the media.  Yet the black guy remains the stupid one. Kennedy never seems to mention the Constitution much in his decisions.  He just shoots from the hip about what he personally thinks is fair.

he might have come to a different conclusion.  yea.... interesting take...   these dues are the moral equivalent of lint.

Kennedy also thinks we should look to European law for guidance, since they are so wise and doing so well over there.

The good news, I guess, is that the next President will appoint at least a couple of judges, but those stepping down will be liberal. Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts, aren't going anywhere barring major illness or death. If Ruth Bader Buzzi retires, it's hard to imagine someone more liberal will slide in, ditto the other libs. So, it's doubtful conservatives will lose ground in the court.

So are you trying to tell us with a straight face that Reagan appointed a liberal to the Supreme Court?  

The child rape decision is a very narrow one as only five states currently allow the death penalty for child. But it makes good sense if you look at the bigger picture. A very large majority of child rapes are done by someone the child knows, family member or friends.  So is the best solution to help the child and the family recover from the trauma to kill a family member?

You forgot one: the Court reducing the damage award for Exxon-Mobil for destroying the tourism and fishing economies around Prince William Sound with the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

I don't know enough about the specifics of the case to form a real opinion, but on the surface at least it doesn't seem that Exxon is having to take full accountabilty for its actions.

While I don't agree with the Democrats push for exorbitant "windfall profits taxes" on a company that already pay tens of billions of dollars a year in taxes. This is about holding a company "fully" responsible for the damages it causes. I think Exxon got off easy on this one.

the rape of a child, not the consensual sex between a 16 year old and one who is 19, but the violent rape of a child, especially one younger than 10 deserves to be put out of everyone's misery. There is no rehabiltation, a monster whose demon's drive him to commit an act so heinous deserves nothing better than to be put down like a mad dog.

The fisherman and others who were parties in the lawsuit against Exxon end up with an award of $15,000 for having their livlihoods destroyed.

Well, Obama can believe what he wants but the Supreme Court has laid down the law of the land.

and I don't doubt you. Then even the original, larger award was still not fair compensation.

Kennedy suffer from being the guy who got appointed to the SC after the failure of robert bork's nomination.  

there are currently two persons incarcerated in the US who are effected by this decision.

GaGambler, 6/26/2008 5:28:31 PM


"the rape of a child, not the consensual sex between a 16 year old and one who is 19, but the violent rape of a child, especially one younger than 10 deserves to be put out of everyone's misery. There is no rehabiltation, a monster whose demon's drive him to commit an act so heinous deserves nothing better than to be put down like a mad dog. "


  There might not be rehabilitation but the child molestors ould set examples if we had the proper legislation........I am thinking of say lets make the punishment fit the crime..Rape a 10 year old and they get the red hot coat hanger up the P hole..When they beg for mercy castrate them and then throw them in the pen with the mad dogs....If they survice the dog dinner throw gas on them and barbecue..Child Molestors deserve NO MERCY !!!


 
 

For some reason I got very agitated at Exxon at the time of the Valdez..From the onset they seemed to lack a sense of honor to fix what they broke ...and they broke it because of a drunk captain...I haven't bought Exxon gas since the Valdez  ...lol ..my one man boycott has made their stock rise considerably..

ocean with a cement block. There is no hope for rehabilation for these vermin.

I think Justice Kennedy's comment about "evolving sttandards of decency" are a reference to judicial decisions and gov't policy outside the US.

2 recent decisions regarding the death penalty -- the unconstitutionality of executing retarded convicts, and the unconstitutionality of executing persons for crimes committed prior to the age of 18 -- were criticized because, in both decisions, reference was made to similar decisions by various tribunals outside of the US, primarily in Europe.  The US Supreme Court is w/o a doubt the world's best known judicial body, but it's members do look at the decisions and practices of other countries, and sometimes do cite them in their opinions.  If only for illustrative purposes.  And not always to the satisfaction of all.

If this decision went the other way, we would no doubt have found out the names of other countries which impose the death penealty for the rape of children [w/o a doubt, one of the ugliest crimes we can imagine] : Iran, Sudan, North Korea, the PRC, etc...  Getting the picture? "Evolving standards of decency" may be indeed the most amorphous and epemheral of concepts [and who knows, perhaps just a rhetorical flourish on the part of Justice Kennedy?], but it is in it's own way groping toward the expression of something more concrete.

A final aside, I marvel at how the political landscape has changed in the 33 years since 1975.  That was the year Justice Stevens was appointed to the Court,and at that time he was considered a solid moderate, but now he's an unabashed liberal vote on the Court.  Similarly, in 1975 Justice Kennedy was appointed to the US Court of Appeals, and he was considered a conservative.  Now, on the SC, he's a centrist swing vote.  And poor Justice Kennedy -- he'll never be loved, as he's the consolatioion prize after the failure of the Robert Bork nomination.

Here's an example of how society's standards evolve, pertinent to this discussion ; in 1800, in the UK, there were apx 100 crimes punishable by death. In 2008 there are none. Maybe he should just have written "change" instead of 'evolve"?




-- Modified on 6/26/2008 8:08:04 PM

YES!!! to both of them.  Many Republicans appoint somewhat moderate judges who eventually become massively liberal due to the power they have.  It is difficult for the irresponsible ones to reign themselves in and actually trust the Constitution.

And the death penalty does help the families of victims.  It's called closure.  It helps them move on when the fucker that wronged them is no longer walking on the same planet as them.  But Ed Asner says it's wrong and that's what's important.

...

-- Modified on 6/27/2008 4:32:10 AM

when it agrees with the libbies.

Wrong. The ruling in Bush v. gore is not the law of the land. The Court said that its ruling applied only in that single case and could not be applied to any others.

Great point.  Practically speaking, this is now the Kennedy Court, not the Roberts Court.