The Court and the evolving standards of decency.
For those that have chided me for not respecting the Constitution because I don't respect rulings of the Supreme Court and the inferior courts below them; I would like to present an excellent column by David Limbaugh that illustrates that the courts do not base their rulings on the Constitution. They base them on whatever their current beliefs are, what they "feel" is right or even on the constitutions and laws of foreign countries.
Limbaugh writes:
"Adding insult to injury, the Court doesn't even deny its staggering presumptuousness. In the words of the ever-disappointing Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, "To implement this framework we have established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of referring to 'the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society' to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual."
I am a strict Constitutional constructionist and believe it should be followed to the letter or should be amended through the legal legislative process rather than by judicial fiat. Once again, a judges ruling and the Constitution are not the same thing.
The column Limbaugh writes is pertaining to the case where the court ruled that anyone under 18 cannot be sentenced to death. My purpose here is not to debate the death penalty, but rather to highlight what the Courts are actually basing their rulings on. It is not on the laws or constitution of our country, rather, they base them on a political agenda. We the people must put our foot down and reign in these lawless tyrants.
Read the rest of Limbaugh's column here.
posted by Mike Bennett @ 8:15 AM
2 comments
links to this post
2 Comments:
"It is not on the laws or constitution of our country"
In this case, the Constitution doesn't tell us what is meant by "cruel and unusual." Presumably it means something, though, or else it wouldn't have been included. So how ought it be determined?
Limbaugh says that the framers intended to prevent torture. I suppose we're to believe, then, that the framers were such bad writers that they simply erred by prohibiting C&U punishment rather than torture. Shouldn't that be wildly implausible to anyone that knows anything about the founders?
jpe,
I don't think I exactly understand your point.
Yes, it does mean something. My intent is not to try and debate what that something is or the death penalty in general. It is to point out what the courts opinion said. It said basically that they know what the founders meant, it has always been interpreted that way and now they are going to change it according to some evolving unknowable standard that they have made up.
In other words, to them the original meaning of the constitution is mearly a "laundry list of suggestions" as you have put it in previous comments. If they don't like what the constitution says, no problem, they will just make something up and overturn the democratic process and amend it by judicial proclamation.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home