The four “dissenters” should have boycotted participating in an Unconstitutional decision by the Court and opposed the illegitimate nature of the ruling itself, if they had really understood what they were doing.

The incompetence and over-reaching by this Court is getting dangerous for national security.

While it is nice to know that they think we are not a war, they should try flying in a regular airline sometime and discover that we act on a war footing to save another 9/11 de facto act of terrorist “invasion”.

49, or all 50?

Not enough. It would have to be at least 57.

I don’t think 50 would be enough.

Vizzini on July 2, 2008 at 1:23 PM

50 would be irrelevent. Like Pauline Kael, Justice Kennedy simply doesn’t know anyone who thinks this would be a good idea.

infidel2 on July 2, 2008 at 3:28 PM

Gotta watch what happens. The 2nd Ammendment suit and this is just the beginning.

To argue with the court’s decision on the basis of its own assumptions will get us nowhere because the Court’s present assumption is that the Constitution is a “living document” whose meaning is supposed to change. That is a devastating assumption to Constitutional government.

So let’s do away with all this discussion about “national consensuses” and start disagreeing with the decision on the only legitimate grounds possible: that the Court’s decision is not in accordance with the original objective meaning of the 8th Amendment.

So what do and can you do concerning people like this? I can only think of one thing.. but what can you do. upinak on July 2, 2008 at 3:20 PM

That’s why I think Allah’s suggestion is so brilliant. If the judges are going to use that test . . . pass more laws in more states and prove them wrong. Recidivism is such a problem that state and federal rules of evidence have carved out an exception to allow evidence of those prior acts at trial.

infidel2 on July 2, 2008 at 3:08 PM

It isn’t a bad comment. They use chemical castration up here on all sexual offenders. Only problem is that these offenders (usually the ones who are determined) find a way around the chemical compounds.

It is getting to the point where we are opening a jail JUST for sexual offenders… non violent to violent.

You can’t reprogram these people. They have shown is doesn’t work. So what do and can you do concerning people like this? I can only think of one thing.. but what can you do.

Sad, very very Sad
upinak on July 2, 2008 at 3:05 PM

I have not had my afternoon coffee yet so I’m not sure how to take your comment. Thoughts of sexual child abuse, recidivism and the limitations on punishment are sad. If you are making some other point, it flew right over my head.

infidel2 on July 2, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Sad, very very Sad.

American democracy is dead, long live the King Justices of the Supreme Court!

The news reports said chemical castration.

I am aware of the data on recidivism even when castration is performed. However, it is still a bit of an “up yours” to the SCOTUS.

infidel2 on July 2, 2008 at 2:48 PM

Is that chemical castration or the “real deal” castration?

What do they do to the women? Giving them a chemical castration type drug isn’t as effective. And the fact that that castration doesn’t work. It is proven if a sexual offender is still “castrated”, they will use other methods.

How many states do you think it would take before Kennedy et al. decided that a new national consensus had been reached? 49, or all 50?

It’s a one-way ratchet, baby!! Does man evolve into an ape?

a few red states to pass laws extending the death penalty to child rape notwithstanding the Court’s decision, then argue on appeal when they’re sued that this constitutes fresh new evidence that standards of decency are still “evolving.”

I love it, if only we had a few more Jindal’s out there willing to try it. Gotta love LA for passing its castration law as soon as SCOTUS stuck down the death penalty.

I have a real problem making the penalty for rape and murder the same. What incentive does a rapist have for letting his victim (witness) live if the penalty for rape and murder are identical?

The Rock on July 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM

One could argue that dis-incentive effect of the death penalty on child rape would be so great that less of it would occur to begin with. I’m not sure which way I would go, but that is why we have a legislature, to deal with specific facts. The SCOTUS stepped in and acted as an unelected, appointed for life uber-legislature and prevents all consideration of any facts.

right4life on July 2, 2008 at 2:19 PM

right, as most sexual predators. They want the power.

Makes you kind of wonder who is jockeying for who.

all he cares about is the POWER

and as long as we allow the supreme court to interpret the constitution then we do not live in a democracy, rather a judicial oligarchy.

How many states do you think it would take before Kennedy et al. decided that a new national consensus had been reached?

For him I would guess 72 and shh don’t let him know there are only 50. :-)

Romeo13 on July 2, 2008 at 2:08 PM

Ok Romeo, you and I can agree there. When it comes to teenagers it gets tricky.

But where do you stop the non-sense? Do you ask WTF the adult (or supposed adult) was doing or thinking? Do you make it an action when the adult is a certain age, say no more then 24? What do you do with the teenager who is out of control.

When it comes to that, you and I agree. That is a weird grey area that you need to sit down and hear both sides.

But I am talking extreme sexual offenders. Child rapiests, True serial rapiests (which there are quite a lot more then people know about), etc.

I have a real problem making the penalty for rape and murder the same. What incentive does a rapist have for letting his victim (witness) live if the penalty for rape and murder are identical?

Casteration and a life sentance in an Islamic prison might be good.