Considering the fact people were being executed right after the 8th amendment was written the idea of capital punishment violating the 8th is totally absurd.That court case should have never seen the light of day in a court and the judge who said it was it was a violation of the 8th should be stripped of his position.

__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt

Why would you think I hate this country?
I'm just pointing out the company we keep, does telling the truth mean I hate this country?
After all, Saudi Arabia is a very conservative religious country, like some people would like the US to become...............

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

Ding!

OSB gets the cookie.


As much as I oppose the death penalty, I also recognize that it's specifically listed as a punishment in the Constitution.

I'd love to see an amendment doing away with the death penalty once and for all, but IMHO it won't happen in the foreseeable future.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

And yet you're so willing to disregard that same Constitution when it doesn't allow something you want....

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Yawn.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Hey, where's my cookie? he was agreeing with me! *grin*

Just out of curiousity, given that you both readily acknowledge the clear and unambiguous textual support for Capital punishment being permissable, what do you think of justices, sworn to uphold that document, simply disregarding that fact and substituting their own personal will in place of the unambiguous text?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

What??? What do you think I am, a handout liberal????



Ok Ok .... I'll share it.

I think ignoring the text acknowledging the death penalty's existence (and it's axiomatic conclusion that it must be constitutional as a choice of punishment given its approved reference in the document) to declare the death penalty unconstitutional on its face as a permissible concept of punishment would constitute a breach of the parameters of judicial licence to interpret constitutional language.

As this pertains to this case, however, I feel it's important to note that the two dissenting justices did not make that holding. Rather, they held the following in a nutshell:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-5439P.ZD

The constitutionality of the death penalty wasn't even an issue in this case. Lethal injection was even conceded to be a constitutional method of performing it. The plaintiff were merely challenging Kentucky's manner of doing it, which was argued to be a manner that has a higher likelihood of causing unnecessary pain.

__________________
Around 200,000 Irish immigrants served in the Union and Confederate armies in the American Civil War, often forming their own regiments and, at times, fought each other. At Fredericksburg, the Union’s Irish Brigade faced the Irish McMillan's Guards of Cobb's 24th Georgia entrenched in a sunken road behind a stone wall. Ordered to make a suicidal charge, it became one of the most famous events of the Civil War. The re-enactment portrayed in the movie Gods and Generals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qVCxEupPag

Damn. I knew I should've made a bigger batch of cookies.

As far as the rest, I'd have to see an example of what you're talking about to make sure that I could agree that the Justices were substituting their own personal will. Reading the decisions gives me a better insight into things that I'm not an expert.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

That demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of "handouts". If it is a reward for doing well, it is not a "hangout", liberals like to give handouts not for achievement or being right (in fact they like to punish the results of prudence and hardwork in their tax policies) but rather the to subsidize the costs to individuals of their poor choices.


As for the rest of it, I agree in the specifics, but not in the general reality. While you are correct that neither Souter or Ginsburg have come out in any opinion and declared the Death Penalty Unconstitutional, they have not, to my knowledge, ever failed to interpret the constitution in a manner that would uphold the death penalty in a single case before them. That really does beg the question if they would EVER fail to find some contorted reason (as unsupported by the text of the constitution, or the clear understanding of it by those who ratified it as reflected in their contemporaneous actions as a flat out prohibition) in any particular case.

Honestly, do you really believe that if flat out confronted with a case that was a complete no brainer, that the only option available without looking totally intellectually insincere was to rule the the death penalty unconstitutional that either Ginsburg or Souter at least would not do so?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Oh c'mon . . . lighten up . . . this shows a fundamental misunderstanding that it was intended to be a joke and taken only as such, not any kind of serious commentary on liberals and/or 'handouts.'

Had they wished to declare that in their opinion the DP should be considered unconstitutional on its face, they have had ample opportunities to write dissenting opinions stating that. To the contrary, their decisions by necessary implication hold that they do not find it unconstitutional per se. See, e.g., Ring v. Arizona (Ginsburg writing for the majority holding that the Sixth Amendment prohibits a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty).

__________________
Around 200,000 Irish immigrants served in the Union and Confederate armies in the American Civil War, often forming their own regiments and, at times, fought each other. At Fredericksburg, the Union’s Irish Brigade faced the Irish McMillan's Guards of Cobb's 24th Georgia entrenched in a sunken road behind a stone wall. Ordered to make a suicidal charge, it became one of the most famous events of the Civil War. The re-enactment portrayed in the movie Gods and Generals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qVCxEupPag

But the point I am making is that despite never having come out (yet) and affirmatively declared the death penalty in all instances unconstitutional, they have nonetheless managed to find it unconstitutional in all instances before them. And Stevens has actually gone on record now as making it pretty clear that he would readily join an opinion to find it unconstitutional outright.

Should such disturbing indications of a justice's willingness to simply replace the will of the people as articulated in our Constitution and democratically enacted statutes be dismissed and disregarded merely because he is in the minority?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Ginsburg's and Souter's decisions reaffirm that the DP as a mode of punishment is constitutional. Otherwise, they would simply state what Stevens has.

None of their DP decisions would make any sense otherwise because their limitation arguments would have been moot from the git-go. It's the same logic as finding that the DP must be a constitutional mode of punishment because it is mentioned in the Constitution where limitations are being set upon it. There is no need to put limitations on something that is prohibited altogether from the git-go. Rather, that assumes its permissible character but with limitations. The same self-evident conclusion happens to be true with Souter's and Ginsburg's opinions.

I agreed with Scalia's opinion concerning Stevens' views in his concurrence that Scalia summed up in the end, to wit:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-5439P.ZC2

As for the other two who dissented, they have had equal opportunity to say the same things as Stevens in Baze and previous opinions but have not done so. More tellingly, their opinions actually repudiate such an opinion.

Jurists must be judged on what they write in their opinions. Otherwise, we'd only be getting into strawman arguments, character assassinations and/or 'conspiracy theory' for debate and conversation. I think the best answer for the sake of fairness and accuracy is to just let the opinions speak for themselves. If anyone reverses an opinion, then they will. If not, then they weren't.

When I read Souter's and Ginsburg's opinions collectively, their position is basically as follows: The DP is constitutional so long as it is performed on mentally competent adults convicted of premeditated murder where the aggravating circumstances surrounding the event outweigh the mitigating ones, and that the jury make the decisions on these matters, and that the DP be performed in the least painful and efficient manner when performed.

See above. I also note that whilst I disagree with Stevens' view that the DP ought to be declared unconstitutional per se--an opinion the dissenters did not join despite the opportunity to do so--he concurred with the majority opinion in affirmance out of respect for stare decisis.

__________________
Around 200,000 Irish immigrants served in the Union and Confederate armies in the American Civil War, often forming their own regiments and, at times, fought each other. At Fredericksburg, the Union’s Irish Brigade faced the Irish McMillan's Guards of Cobb's 24th Georgia entrenched in a sunken road behind a stone wall. Ordered to make a suicidal charge, it became one of the most famous events of the Civil War. The re-enactment portrayed in the movie Gods and Generals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qVCxEupPag

O'Sullivan, I don't disagree with any of what you've said, save for the notion that there was anything in the dissent or concurrence which precludes those same justices--if they think they could get a majority--from summarily striking the death penalty per se as unconstitutional.

While Stevens paid somewhat irrational lipservice to stare decisis in writting a concuring opinion rather than a dissent, the dissenters dismissed Stare Decisis and once again invoked the judicial self-agrandizing standard of the "evolving standards of decency...". The specifically said that (contrary to the standard they have themselves applied to the abortion cases) regardless of what precedents were, the endurance of those precedents is DIMINISHED over time, not enhanced.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

__________________
The smile when you tore me apart. You took my heart, deceived me right from the start. You showed me dreams, I wished they'd turn into real. You broke a promise and made me realize.
It was all just a lie.

Fine, perfectly legitimate argument with regard to public policy concerning the death penalty, but wholly irrelevant to whether or not it is constitutional or not.

As Scalia says, 'want to abolish the death penalty, no problem! Convince your fellow citizens to do away with it through the democratic process', but don't go running to him to substitute your will for the will of the people by flat out ignoring the plain and unambiguous text of the Constitution.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane