The Discerning Texan

Out of thin air! Anthony Kennedy and his four disgraceful Comrades on the "Supreme Politburo of the US Judges' Republic" do their magic act--again! Voila: a law where one did not exist before! Not from the people or their elected representatives, mind you--(you know the ones that our Constitution says are in charge...)--no, five black-robed dictators.

These guys are a national disgrace. And I don't care if you agree with the morality of the Death Penalty or not. It is not the Court's role to make moral judgments for the people.

Another extra-Constitutional decision, creating law and precedent where there was none, and overruling the expressed will of the people.

And to think--I was always thought that We the People make the laws... I thought this was OUR country. Silly me...

Via Sweetness and Light:

From the Agence France-Presse:

US Supreme Court rejects executions for child rape

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the death penalty should not apply to a man convicted of raping a child, saying that capital punishment only applies to murderers.

"The Eighth Amendment (of the US Constitution) bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim’s death," said the justices in a 5-4 decision.

In its ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the high court cited a "national consensus" reflected in the vast majority of US states that did not have laws allowing capital punishment for the crime of child rape.

Given previous court rulings and its interpretation of the US Constitution, the justices held that "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the crime of child rape."

The case involved an appeal by lawyers for Patrick Kennedy, 43, who was sentenced to death in 2003 for raping the daughter of his girlfriend five years earlier, when the child was eight years old.

Since the death penalty was reinstated in the United States in 1976, it has only been carried out for crimes of murder.

In 1977 the Supreme Court overturned the death sentence of a rapist, saying the punishment for the crime was excessive and fell under the constitution’s proscription of "cruel and unusual" punishment…

This is just the latest fatwa from the five Imams on the Supreme Court.

In its ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the high court cited a "national consensus"

Remember when the Supreme Court used to make its rulings based on the Constitution?

And how do they know this is the national consensus? And will they follow the "national consensus" on other issues, such as abortion?

Meanwhile, here is the musty old Eighth Amendment says in toto:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Which somehow has been twisted by five mullahs to mean:

"The Eighth Amendment (of the US Constitution) bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim’s death," said the justices in a 5-4 decision.

Even the worst Muslim scholars would not be so daring.

Texas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Montana, Louisiana, Florida and George all have legislation allowing the death penalty for child rape.

Apart from them, other states and their citizens believed they could allow the death penalty for other crimes besides murder.

Other Statutes allowing the death penalty for non-murder crimes

Treason (Arkansas, Calif., Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Washington)
Aggravated kidnapping (Co., Idaho, Il., Missouri, Mont.)
Drug trafficking (Fl., Missouri)
Aircraft hijacking (Ga., Mo.)
Placing a bomb near a bus terminal (Mo.)
Espionage (New Mexico)
Aggravated assault by incarcerated, persistent felons, or murderers (Mont.)

Federal capital statutes for non-murder crimes

Espionage (18 U.S.C. 794)
Treason (18 U.S.C. 2381)
Trafficking in large quantities of drugs (18 U.S.C. 3591(b))
Attempting, authorizing or advising the killing of any officer, juror,or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, regardless of whether such killing actually occurs (18 U.S.C. 3591(b)(2))

A "NATIONAL CONSENSUS" AS A BASIS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW???? Well then. let's just have a National Plebiscite anytime there is a question of Consensus and settle that argument once and for all! I mean, now that "national consensus" enters into the question at all, who needs the court anymore??? We'll just find that "consensus" for every case. We'll just put every case to the whim of the national "mood" and the media mouthpieces....

Seriously, why have a Constitution? It is irrelevant as of Boumediene and as of this abomination.

Remembering Ben Franklin's haunting words in 1789: I want to pose a serious question to serious people; is this an indication that we nearing the End of the Republic? It really does makes you wonder. Staggering; First Boumediene--now this??? If this keeps up, one day the people will take it to the streets.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt's site has quotes from Alito's dissent. Still waiting to see Thomas' and Roberts' (emphasis mine):

"The Court today holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the imposition of the death penaltyfor the crime of raping a child. This is so, according to the Court, no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be. The Court provides two reasons for this sweeping conclusion: First, the Court claims to have identified "a national consensus" that the death penalty is never acceptable for the rape of a child; second, the Court concludes, based on its "independent judgment," that imposing the death penalty for child rape is inconsistent with "‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’" Ante, at 8, 15, 16 (citation omitted). Because neither of these justifications is sound, I respectfully dissent."

And, the dissent concludes:

"In summary, the Court holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically rules out the death penalty in even the most extreme cases of child rape even though: (1) This holding is not supported by the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment; (2) neither Coker nor any other prior precedent commands this result; (3) there are no reliable"objective indicia" of a "national consensus" in support of the Court’s position; (4) sustaining the constitutionality of the state law before us would not "extend" or "expand" the death penalty; (5) this Court has previously rejected the proposition that the Eighth Amendment is a one-way ratchet that prohibits legislatures from adopting new capital punishment statutes to meet new problems; (6) the worst child rapists exhibit the epitome of moral depravity; and (7) child rape inflicts grievous injury on victims and on society in general."

Congratulations to all the child rapists and sadistic torturers out there: you are now a "protected class"... NAMBLA must be popping corks about now...

The Hewitt page also has a link to this analysis of the Court overruling the will of States.

UPDATE: Entire opinion here. Alito's dissent from pp. 42-65. More Alito money quotes courtesy of Hot Air:

With respect to the question of moral depravity, is it really true that every person who is convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death is more morally depraved than every child rapist? Consider the following two cases. In the first, a defendant robs a convenience store and watches as his accomplice shoots the store owner. The defendant acts recklessly, but was not the triggerman and did not intend the killing. In the second case, a previously convicted child rapist kidnaps, repeatedly rapes, and tortures multiple child victims. Is it clear that the first defendant is more morally depraved than the second?

The Court’s decision here stands in stark contrast to Atkins and Roper, in which the Court concluded that characteristics of the affected defendants—mental retardation in Atkins and youth in Roper—diminished their culpability. Nor is this case comparable to Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782 (1982), in which the Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty where the defendant participated in a robbery during which a murder was committed but did not personally intend for lethal force to be used. I have no doubt that, under the prevailing standards of our society, robbery, the crime that the petitioner in Enmund intended to commit, does not evidence the same degree of moral depravity as the brutal rape of a young child. Indeed, I have little doubt that, in the eyes of ordinary Americans, the very worst child rapists—predators who seek out and inflict serious physical and emotional injury on defenseless young children—are the epitome of moral depravity.

This decision is "moral depravity". And yet another BLATANT violation of the Social Contract between our Government and its Citizens.

UPDATE: This is the crime for which the defendant now is allowed to live, in "law" crafted out of thin air by these Justices. This Court is a joke. You can see why even Barack Obama is (at the moment...) disowning this one--one can never count on one of his positions longer than a weak, however.

UPDATE: With this decision, the US and the Muslim fundamentalists are in better "alignment"...