Hey folks,
But for how long? It depends on who the Next President is and who THEY appoint. Everybody was upset at the Supreme Court for their idiotic ruling:Kennedy v. Louisiana: Declaring that the death penalty for the crime of child rape violates the Eight Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment; the decision overturned a ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court that would have allowed the execution of a man convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter. 5-4 Writing the decision- Kennedy. Dissenting - Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito
What most people were upset about was this statement. "The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child." What can you think of that is more horrendous than raping an innocent child? Not much. So many were beside themselves over this one. While the court ruling effectively ends the use of the death penalty for child rape, the court left open its use for crimes such as "treason, espionage, terrorism, and drug kingpin activity, which are offenses against the state." Kennedy wrote, "As it relates to crimes against individuals, though, the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken." In other words, no life taken for no life taken.
Then you have the other ruling that a lot of people, including yours truly, found to be completely insane.
Boumediene v. Bush: Declaring for the first time that foreign prisoners held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a constitutional right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. 5-4 Writing the decision - Kennedy, Dissenting - Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito
In essence, giving US Constitutional Rights to those that want to kill us. To NON- US Citizens.
But in the bigger picture, we see the Court doing what it is MEANT to do. Upholding the Constitution. Instead of rewriting the Constitution, by legislating from the bench, they have started to actually UPHOLD it against insane laws from the past or those that want to violated it by passing new laws.
The Second Amendment.
District of Columbia v. Heller: Establishing for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to own guns and rejecting the notion that the gun right must be connected to service in the militia; the decision struck down a Washington handgun ban. 5-4 Writing the decision - Scalia. Dissenting - Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter.
Voting Rights and the First Amendment.
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board: Upholding an Indiana law that prohibited people from voting unless they presented a photo ID issued by the state or federal government. 6-3 Writing the decision - Stevens Dissenting- Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg.
To cut down on Voter Fraud and making sure that those voting are ELIGABALE to do so. Nothing wrong with that.
Then the latest.
Davis v. Federal Election Commission: Striking down the "millionaires' amendment" in federal campaign-finance law, which lifted contribution limits for House of Representatives candidates when their opponents spent more than $350,000 of their own money; the court also threw out additional disclosure requirements for wealthy candidates. 5-4 Writing the decision - Alito. Dissenting - Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter.
Now this case overturns some of the McCain / Feingold legislational attack on Free Speech. Those that are for the "millionaires' amendment" say it all about fairness. Yes, fairness. Level the playing field for all. {Sigh} But it's NOT, nor will it ever be level. Anyway, Alito wrote in his majority opinion. "The argument that a candidate's speech may be restricted in order to 'level electoral opportunities' has ominous implications," and is "antithetical to the First Amendment."
Folks, THIS is what the Court SHOULD be all about. Upholding the Constitution. Enforcing JUST laws and doing away with those that are unconstitutional. NOT creating laws to further agendas. It has been a great week for the Constitution. Let's hope it continues.
Peter
Sources:
USA Today - Major rulings for the 2007-2008 Supreme Court term
No comments:
Post a Comment