The Supremely Offensive Court

I can't believe what is happening at the Supreme Court. Roper v. Simmons (juvenile death penalty) invoked the idea that there is national consensus supporting the court's ruling. What a dumb/biased idea. The last few years have seen the most open vigorous political debates I have ever seen. Conservative principles are now part of the public debate in a way that was not true just even 5 years ago. We are seeing a radical change in foreign policy. It is unclear what place Europe will have in the political landscape of the future. Yet this court saw fit to judge this case by appealing to a consensus that has developed over the last 15 years and appealing to European values.

There is certainly no consensus in this matter and anyway who the hell are they to ascertain one and then make laws according to it? That is what the Congress is for!

Professor David M. Wagner, Regent University School of Law at Ninomania: "You know, state governments -- notoriously pinched for funds -- could save a bundle by disbanding their legislatures and just letting the Supreme Court rule them directly through its by-now-familiar process of consensus-discernment ...

I don't even particularly like the death penalty ... But the formulation of a moral judgment on it, and the translation of that judgment into votes every election year, is something I can handle myself, and I think most of my fellow-citizens can too. When did I resign that authority to litigators and courts? When did we vote on that? Oh, I forgot: resolving major issues by voting is so two hundred years ago."

Besides, the majority used faulty reasoning anyway. This is from Scalia's dissent:

In an attempt to keep afloat its implausible assertion of national consensus, the Court throws overboard a proposition well established in our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. "“It should be observed,"” the Court says, “"that the Stanford Court should have considered those States that had abandoned the death penalty altogether as part of the consensus against the juvenile death penalty . . .; a State’s decision to bar the death penalty altogether of necessity demonstrates a judgment that the death penalty is inappropriate for all offenders, including juveniles."” Ante, at 20. The insinuation that the Court’s new method of counting contradicts only "“the Stanford Court"” is misleading. None of our cases dealing with an alleged constitutional limitation upon the death penalty has counted, as States supporting a consensus in favor of that limitation, States that have eliminated the death penalty entirely. See Ford, supra, at 408, n. 2; Enmund, supra, at 789; Coker, supra, at 594. And with good reason. Consulting States that bar the death penalty concerning the necessity of making an exception to the penalty for offenders under 18 is rather like including old-order Amishmen in a consumer- preference poll on the electric car. Of course they don’t like it, but that sheds no light whatever on the point at issue. That 12 States favor no executions says something about consensus against the death penalty, but nothing— -- absolutely nothing -- about consensus that offenders under 18 deserve special immunity from such a penalty.

Like many conservatives, I do not support the death penalty for minors, but this ruling is just bad. They say that bad cases make bad decisions, but here the decision is bad all on its own. Our Supreme Court has disdain for the deliberative process as such and special disdain for the deliberations of its own nation. What more proof can you need that Leftist one-world-government ideology has infected our elite?