
Originally Posted by
discretedancer
JZ that is true, though I heard somewhere (need to pull out my copy of Constitution) the court was NOT set up as final arbitor of constitutional law...that the constitution either left that open or gave it to legislature.
Supreme court started taking that role in Jefferson's term - far enough back for me (especially because sitting president knew the desires behind founding fathers rather directly).
US Constitution, Article 3. Section 1. (establishment of SC) and 2. (powers)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ion/article03/

Originally Posted by
Destiny
No, it's not proper. The role of the U.S. Supreme Court is to interpret the U.S. Consitution.
My statement did not concern the death penalty specifically, it was about the supreme court using "international opinion" in determining the constitutionality of laws. Second, this this entire thread is not about the death penalty specifically. This thread asks, "is it proper for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider international opinion in deciding if laws and court decisions are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution?" If you want to debate whether the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" or not, start a new thread.
OK, maybe we had some sort of a disconnect, but Melanie's original post was in regards to how the SC (via an opinion authored by Kennedy) committed some outrageous new precedent in it's ruling on the death penalty. This ruling hinges entirely on the interpretation of Eighth Amendment, specifically, the "cruel and unusual" clause.
UC Constitution: Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
For a detailed annotated reference, see:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment08/
Whether or not it is appropriate to consider domestic public opinion or international opinions or thought in making such an interpretation was the issue Melanie originally laid out.
ALL NINE Justices agree that a consensus of domestic opinion of societal standards of decency is an appropriate component in interpreting this clause. Six of the Justices agree that international values play some role, even if only as confirming an opinion arrrived at independantly.
This thread asks, "is it proper for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider international opinion in deciding if laws and court decisions are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution?"
I agree this is one of the issues Melanie took exception with in regards to this SC decision. Again, I emplore you to read the full decision, as Justice O'Connor discusses this issue at length in her dissent no less:
Over the course of nearly half a century, the Court has consistently referred to foreign and international law as relevant to its assessment of evolving standards of decency. See
Atkins,
536 U. S., at 317, n. 21;
Thompson,
487 U. S., at 830-831, and n. 31 (plurality opinion);
Enmund,
458 U. S., at 796-797, n. 22;
Coker,
433 U. S., at 596, n. 10 (plurality opinion);
Trop,
356 U. S., at 102-103 (plurality opinion). This inquiry reflects the special character of the Eighth Amendment, which, as the Court has long held, draws its meaning directly from the maturing values of civilized society.
Again, it is notable that the Eighth Amendment is unique in putting forth this undefined dictum based on standards of human decency as among the highest laws of our country. Whether human decency is limited to American opinion or not is a reasonable question. Certainly, if the one is completely out of step with the rest of the world it should cause pause, and perhaps a second look in the mirror.
That's the problem I have with the decision. It's too inflexible. From the decision I read:
During closing arguments, both the prosecutor and defense counsel addressed Simmons' age, which the trial judge had instructed the jurors they could consider as a mitigating factor.
To me that is the proper way to handle these types of cases. Rather than have a hard and fast rule, let the jury decide
Although you are quoting from Justice O'Connor's dissent here, not the opinion [decision], I agree with you.
I label judges by their opinions, not by who appointed them. A Justice that seeks to impose his own opinions on society or who looks to "international opinions" to justify his decision is "liberal". A Justice who looks soley to the Constitution and precedents is "conservative".
Generally I refrain from getting baited into debating this simplistic and patently false characterization, but in this particular case, you are indisputably mistaken. The clause "cruel and unusual punishment" begs an evolving interpretation, precisely as designed. To believe otherwise would be to allow the execution of seven year old children. As so well put by Justice O'Connor in her dissent:
It is by now beyond serious dispute that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments" is not a static command. Its mandate would be little more than a dead letter today if it barred only those sanctions--like the execution of children under the age of seven--that civilized society had already repudiated in 1791. See
ante, at 1 (
Stevens, J., concurring); cf.
Stanford,
supra, at 368 (discussing the common law rule at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted). Rather, because "[t]he basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man," the Amendment "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
Trop v.
Dulles,
356 U. S. 86, 100-101
All nine members of the Court agree...The
right-wing nut-job trio Scalia, Renky, and Thomas say its too soon to revisit this issue, no consensus yet, 2 + 2 = 13, and the other members of the Court are
weenie asshats. (Scalia is getting
really punchy these days....)
Now who's affixing labels?
Affixing labels...please. I'm name calling and fabricating here. Scalia may be a fuck-tard ass-clown...but he never actually said "asshat". The dipshit. Ohhhh....he's cool... 1000 x the jurist Renky or Thomas are combined.
Bookmarks