Supreme Court, Supreme Mistake

[GregoryA]

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of the United States declared the execution of those under 18 years old as unconstitutional. 19 soveriegn states of these United States had decided that executions of this type were lawful and appropriate.

The 5 justice majority opinion sighted the laws of other nations where the execution of minors is prohibited as a major part of their arguement.

My question is: Since when has the Supreme Court of the United States used the laws of foriegn nations to interpret U.S. law? Since when has Belgian law or Swiss law or Congo's law ever been a basis for a Supreme Court deciscion? Since when has another nations law held more validity than 19 of our own states' law.

[Patriot]

Bear in mind this: that the justices are appointed, not elected.

Take a look at the justices. Then, honestly ask yourself if any other decision could have been reached. Do we have West Pointers up there? Do we have people worth their salt aside of Rehnquist and Scalia?

The problem doesn't lie with the Supreme Court. It lies with the president who appoints the justices. And it is the fault of the people for electing a president.

In other words, it is the fault of the nation for reaching this stage.

[TNRighty]

I spoke about this briefly in a previous thread, but I'll reiterate here.

The Supreme Court was formed to uphold the Constitution, not legislate policy from the bench. Right now we have justices who put themselves above the Constitution and are essentially ammending it according to the way the wind blows. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

We like to say all the time that no one is above the law, but that statement has become a cliche and very few people really know what it means. This is a perfect example of someone putting their own opinions above the law.

Everyone has opinions, even our Supreme Court Justices. They are men also, as flawed as any of us. They are not apolitical, but the Constitution is. The first quality we should look for in a Supreme Court Justice is not his political views, but rather is he unselfish. Is he willing to put his politics aside and become a servant of the Constitution, forsaking himself and his own ideologies.

It is widely recognized that the President of the United States of America is the most powerful man in the world, but that is wrong. His power is granted to him by the people, and thus the people are equally as powerful. Our country is not ruled by the President. It is ruled by the Constitution, and we should pay as much attention to the Justices in charge of upholding the word that document as we do to the President.

The power our Supreme Court Justices hold is given to them by the Constitution, not the other way around. The Constitutin calls the shots, not the Justices. They merely speak on behalf of a document which unfortunately does not have a voicebox. If it did it would be screaming at the top of its lungs right now.

[Ian]

To better understand the frustration of many conservatives regarding the Supreme Court, let us take a look at the Justices and their appointers.

/me Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (born 1924, appointed by Richard Nixon in 1971 and elevated by Ronald Reagan in 1986);

/me Justice John Paul Stevens (born 1920, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975);

/me Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (born 1930, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981);

/me Justice Antonin Scalia (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986);

/me Justice Anthony Kennedy (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1988);

/me Justice David Souter (born 1939, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1990);

/me Justice Clarence Thomas (born 1948, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1991).

/me Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (born 1933, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993);

/me Justice Stephen Breyer (born 1938, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994);

Given, two of the three most rabidly liberal Justices (Breyer and Ginsburg) were appointed by President Clinton, however, the completion of the liberal, legal triumvirate (Stevens) was appointed by none other than Gerald Ford (he was the President who succeeded Nixon, don't feel bad, if it wasn't for his place in Americana handed to him by SNL, no one would remember his name).

Moving on, two of the moderate, and I use that term loosely, Justices (Kennedy and O'Connor) were appointed by Sean Hannity's God, Ronald Reagan.

And rounding out the bottom of the barrel we find Justice Souter. Appointed by whom, you ask? Of course, the gift that keeps on giving like a night in a Hanoi whorehouse, the Bush family, Bush 41 to be specific.

So for all the rightful bickering on the part of Republicans over the stonewalling of Bush's federal judge nominees, I can't help but catch a whiff of the pungent stench of hypocrisy, considering that over the past 30 years the Republicans worst enemy in the battle over judicial appointment has been none other than the Republicans themselves.

[GregoryA]

Ian said:

To better understand the frustration of many conservatives regarding the Supreme Court, let us take a look at the Justices and their appointers.

/me Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (born 1924, appointed by Richard Nixon in 1971 and elevated by Ronald Reagan in 1986);

/me Justice John Paul Stevens (born 1920, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975);



/me Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (born 1930, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981);

/me Justice Antonin Scalia (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986);

/me Justice Anthony Kennedy (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1988);

/me Justice David Souter (born 1939, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1990);

/me Justice Clarence Thomas (born 1948, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1991).

/me Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (born 1933, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993);

/me Justice Stephen Breyer (born 1938, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994);

Given, two of the three most rabidly liberal Justices (Breyer and Ginsburg) were appointed by President Clinton, however, the completion of the liberal, legal triumvirate (Stevens) was appointed by none other than Gerald Ford (he was the President who succeeded Nixon, don't feel bad, if it wasn't for his place in Americana handed to him by SNL, no one would remember his name).

Moving on, two of the moderate, and I use that term loosely, Justices (Kennedy and O'Connor) were appointed by Sean Hannity's God, Ronald Reagan.

And rounding out the bottom of the barrel we find Justice Souter. Appointed by whom, you ask? Of course, the gift that keeps on giving like a night in a Hanoi whorehouse, the Bush family, Bush 41 to be specific.

So for all the rightful bickering on the part of Republicans over the stonewalling of Bush's federal judge nominees, I can't help but catch a whiff of the pungent stench of hypocrisy, considering that over the past 30 years the Republicans worst enemy in the battle over judicial appointment has been none other than the Republicans themselves.

Once again excellent points Mr. Ian. The issue isn't the political ideology of the president who did the appointing in all cases.


We have tyrrany from the bench.

God save our Constitution from these "legislators" in black robes.

[Ian]

Thank you kindly Sir Gregory. Please, feel free to call me Ian. ;D