Mark Levin today on the Corner:
Let me put this bluntly — every time the Supreme Court meets in secret conference, it sits as a constitutional convention, rewriting the Constitution at will.
I couldn't put it better. Andy McCarthy has a lot to say about Kennedy v. Louisiana.
Eighth Amendment Question: Isn't Brutally Raping an Eight-year-old More Cruel Than Lethal Injection?
Even if you agree with their bottom line, do Justice Kennedy and the justices in Kennedy v. Louisiana have a clue about how offensive it is to write this line in rationalizing why a man who has savagely raped his eight-year-old step-daughter should not be executed by the humane process of lethal objection:
"Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person[.]"
And as for their "proportional" punishment argue, I think it's silly on its face — read the almost unreadable (because it's so excruciating) account of the rape and ask yourself whether it is really "disproportionate" to administer lethal-objection execution to a man who committed this type of barbaric a sexual assault on a child.
But let's give him that one for argument's sake. The Eighth Amendment talks about punishment that is cruel. First, punishment does not become cruel just because it's disproportionate. And second, are we really striving here for proportionality? If a crime is cruel — as it clearly was in this case — wouldn't a proportionate punishment also have to be cruel, and thus in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
Too logical for the court.
2 comments:
I'm for marooning all criminals who commit capital crimes on a remote tropical island, filming their antics, and selling it as a reality television show. Then take the profits and pay the victims of the crimes plus pay for law enforcement to pursue crime. This would not be cruel but it would be unusual which could make it unconstitutional.
If we could convince all three networks then maybe it would be usual as well.
Post a Comment