Sometimes it's hard to make sense of the decisions the Supreme Court makes. When they cherry-pick foreign legal decisions to cite as the basis for some of their more Left-leaning rulings, for instance, it can make anyone's head spin. Why, I often wonder, do they speak of the "values we share with a wider civilization" when they cite European court rulings, but ignore foreign laws that disagree with the Liberal agenda? For every decision they make citing the European Court of Human Rights, shouldn't there be a ruling based on Shari'a law or Chinese law?
In one instance, the Supreme Court effectively overturned the Tenth Amendment in the Lawrence v. Texas decision when they removed the right of Texas to make its own laws regarding sodomy. The Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in the decision that the European Court of Human Rights and other foreign courts had affirmed the "rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct." He also mentioned that privacy for gay men and women "has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries." Yet the Supreme Court didn't balance this blatant Eurocentrism by ruling that women should be stoned for exposing the upper part of their feet, or that anyone who didn't bow to President Bush's portrait should be sent to a concentration camp to mine coal and make soccer balls for cheap export. If they were taking foreign laws and attitudes regarding homosexuality into account when making their decision, why didn't they rule that, as Shari'a law states, the Texas legal system should "Kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done?" It's obvious that the Supreme Court made a decision not based on the Constitution, but their own prejudices and attitudes, then sought precedents by which to explain it.
In the great tradition of Roe v. Wade and Justice Hugo Black's "separation of Church and State," the Supreme Court recently found yet another part of the Constitution that no one had ever seen before (no doubt written on the back of the third page of the original, in lemon juice). This one said that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death, no matter how heinous the crime. States have now lost the right to mete out justice as they see fit. Justice Kennedy (again) joined Liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Kennedy stated that those under 18 should not be subject to the death penalty because the "instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime." Kennedy further blamed "a lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility" and the "diminished culpability of juveniles" for their crimes.
Arizona youth Kenneth Laird, for instance, was only 17 when he broke into Wanda Starnes’ home while she was at work. He tied, gagged and locked her in a bathroom when she returned, then choked her with a rope and bashed her skull in. Laird then spent the next few days driving her truck and forging checks from her account. Mere youthful high spirits, no doubt. Nathan Ramirez was 17 when he and a friend broke into the Florida home of 71-year-old Mildred Boroski, tied her to her bed, killed her dog with a crowbar and looted the house. After the friend raped Boroski, Ramirez shot her twice in the head. He was obviously suffering from an underdeveloped sense of responsibility.
Dale Dwayne Craig was 17 when he fired three bullets into the head of Kipp Gullet as Gullet cried and begged for mercy after Craig abducted him. Stephen Virgil McGilberry killed four members of his Mississippi family with a baseball bat when he was 16. Tilmon Golphin and his older brother killed two police officers after committing robbery and grand theft auto, shooting the already-wounded men at point-blank range. Efrain Perez and Raul Villarreal were both 17 when they and three others gang-raped two girls, 16 and 14, before strangling and stomping them to death. One of the girls was strangled with her own shoelaces. Kevin Hughes sexually assaulted and strangled a nine-year-old Pennsylvania girl before setting her body on fire when he was 17. I suppose we should just be thankful he killed her first.
All these animals and more are now free of the death penalty, thanks to the Supreme Court and their reliance on foreign laws. "In sum, it is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty," Justice Kennedy wrote in the decision, also noting that the practice was banned by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The part that confuses me the most is how the same "children" who are deemed unstable, emotionally unbalanced, immature and lacking a sense of responsibility by this ruling are still somehow responsible and mature enough to get birth control or abortions without parental consent in states like California and Florida.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor warned us that "over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, of international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues." Well, what do European court decisions matter to me? I don't live there, nor do I want European judges deciding my laws for me. Any judge who bases his or her decisions on any document other than the US Constitution or on any legal ruling made beyond our borders ought to be impeached. As an American, I insist that my laws be written only by my fellow Americans, and comply with my Constitution. If I want to live under the laws of another country, I know how to buy a ticket for the next plane or boat, believe me -- I don't need the illegal immigration of their judicial rulings.
As you can see I'm just trying to stir up some new debates in here.
America is run by complete morons. Didn't you get the memo?
Premium as of January 25, 2005. Support the Org.
Lawrence v. Texas did not violate 10th Amendment rights; rather the Texas statues that held homosexual anal intercourse illegal for a selected group of persons violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment.
Under the Constitution, a state may enforce a law if it furthers a legitimate state interest. No state interest may be furthered by this law, outside of bigotry and blatant homophobia, neither of which are legitimate. This is a state law that did not outlaw anal intercourse between all Texans, rather it limited this law specifically to homosexuals, and in doing so violated those citizens right guaranteed to them by the Constitution.
Upon a quick re-reading of Lawrence v. Texas, the basis for a decision was not grounded in “Eurocentrism.” Rather, the decisions were decided by US laws. The reference to “European decisions merely give context to the decision that the US is not the only country that does this, which would remove any radical aspect to their decision that might appear from a more Judeo-Christian crowd.
I have not read the new case regarding the death penalty with minors, however my basic understanding is that the Supreme Court ruled that a minor by definition cannot form the required mens rea (state of mind) required by Due Process. While the age itself may be arbitrarily determined, a minor is a minor because they are unable to make the proper decisions (which is why they can’t smoke, gamble, buy porn, drink, go to bars, etc.). Furthermore, the death penalty is only a viable punishment in case in which a person knowingly or purposefully kills another. It is extremely conflicting to hold that a minor (once again by definition) isn’t old enough to make adult decisions, and then turn around and punish them for failing to make an adult decision.
Lastly, in the child-death-penalty case, you make no mention of a citation to European decisions in support of your conclusion that the Supreme Court is basing their decisions on European thinking. If it was mentioned in that case, what did it say? If it wasn’t, why was it even in there?
I'll start off like this:
1. The death penalty is merely punitive, and hasn't been proven to diminish crimes of such nature to warrant it in any state.
2. If another country has dealt with the cases of juvenile murder, why NOT examine their findings? You seem to think that the US has a grand legal tradition, when it's simply borrowed a lot of them from European traditions, and altered them into something that fits the Constitution.
3. Understanding my stance on #1, I find it useless to sentence anyone, especially juveniles, to death because it doesn't solve anything. If you can't rehabilitate someone, why not just continue with the idea of warehousing them? It'll be cheaper in the long run than convicting, sentencing, appealing 3x to the various appellate, state, and possibly supreme courts (the math is there, look up the other death penalty cases).
I'm not saying there aren't bad seeds out there that probably deserve it, but it's not going to solve anything, and it's not going to help anything. Killing kids is abhorent to me as a person of conscience even when that child has killed in petulence or for a thrill. If you just kill and kill and kill, what does that say? "The state'll get ya, so ya better do something good so you'll at least be recognised." It's another form of the criminal's boogey man or Kaizer Soze.
On the other topic at the head of the posting: The US doesn't take it's legal traditions or any values from (fundamentalist) Islamic or Asian courts, why should it consider the laws of a country with which they share little common idealogy? They don't. Get over it.
Also, PCS is right, the State held only those that are homosexual in violation of that law. If you substituted any other ethnic, religious, idealogical or minority group in there, the law would be in violation of the constitution, as prima fasciae. Besides, the Government has no business in the bedrooms of the people.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
The only thing judges should be using to base their decisions is the U.S. Constitution period.
The judgement are made based on the US constitution, did you not read the article? The texas law was descriminatory, and the US constitution says that's unlawful.
As a signatory member nation of the UN, the US is obligated to uphold UN resolutions.
If the US wanted to look outside it borders for examples in law, Canada will try a 16 or 17 year old murderer as an adult. It hinges on the severity of the crime and the criminals mental state, but it is possible. Of course in Canada, nobody gets the death penalty, so it is a little easier to move juvenile offenders into the adult system.
PAX
Rollin 24 wrote:The only thing judges should be using to base their decisions is the U.S. Constitution period.
I read through the opinion, as well as the concurring and dissenting opinions. The decision was based on the Consitution. Citing to legal sources outside the US is common place.
Even Scalia in the death penalty case (in his dissenting opinion) discussed the status of death penalties in other countries (I know, he cited books by my Criminal Law Prof.). Doing this is not a BASIS for a decision, but merely DICTA to help waive notions that the decision is somehow "radical."
Ok, noones opinion on citing sources outside of the US is right or wrong. I just stand by my opinion that it is wrong for judges to be looking at ANYTHING other than the constitution
Rollin 24 wrote:Ok, noones opinion on citing sources outside of the US is right or wrong. I just stand by my opinion that it is wrong for judges to be looking at ANYTHING other than the constitution
Ok...why shouldn't judges look at anything else besides the constitution?
Damn, I was hoping to jump in on this one but it looks like Pork and GAM wrapped it up in a hurry.
---
Dont forget sodomy also includes banging a chich in the poop shoot to. No old bible thumpin fart is goign to take that right away from me.
Children are mminors by law, and are not responsible for the actions. thats our law. as such, they cannot be tried as adults. so a sixteen year old who kills is held responsible, but then they arent responsible enough to vote or to have a beer.
The human brain does not fully develope until th early twenties...thats scientific fact. therefore, if we knwo the brain is stil ldeveloping and becomming more adult, then we have to understand that the decisioning process is still capable of being flawed.
plus i am morally against the death penalty in all cases, period.
What's cooler..than being cool?
AGuSTiN wrote:Damn, I was hoping to jump in on this one but it looks like Pork and GAM wrapped it up in a hurry.
Sorry Agustin...
PCS: I'm still waiting for an answer also... I'm not holding my breath anymore though...
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Pork Chop Sandwiches!!! wrote:Rollin 24 wrote:Ok, noones opinion on citing sources outside of the US is right or wrong. I just stand by my opinion that it is wrong for judges to be looking at ANYTHING other than the constitution
Ok...why shouldn't judges look at anything else besides the constitution?
Because the jobs of U.S. judges are to interpret the consitituion.......Kind of simple.
When something can be interpreted in different ways, is it not wise to seek other examples in law as a guide?
PAX
Also, if things can be interpreted broadly, would it not make sense to ammend it into something that cannot be interpreted anyway but narrowly?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
The constitution is not perfect, Rollin'. If it was there would have been no amendments.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
GAM, Ok I would agree that it needs to be amended to not have so much interpretation. But until then I think the judges need to do there job as it is described in the Constituion. To do otherwise would be abuse of power.
I agree with Rollin. You guys are gonna love this. Why don't we just import every other countries laws and apply them to people in this country? Great idea! They already did.
Listen to this.
A case in the New York supreme court, (People vs. Chen). Doug Lu Chen, a Chinese immigrant who had lived in New York about a year was on trial. what was he on trial for? Well Mr. Chens' wife, Jian Wan Chen had an affair with another man. So Mr. Chen decided it was fitting to hit her in the head 8 times with a hammer, killing her.
during his defense nobody tried proving he was insane or dillusional, or mentally sick. Nope, their defense was this. "well, in chinese culture Mr. chens wifes' actions would have been viewed as a sign of Chen's weakness. So murdering her can be excused if you understand the culture he is coming from." After hearing this the judge hearing the case, Edward K. Pincus said "cultural factors lessen the defendant's responsibility for certain crimes"
Mr. Chen ended up be found guilty of not murder, but manslaughter in the second degree. He was sentenced to five years. five years in jail? Nope 5 years probation. For killing his wife with a hammer, he gets five years probation.
That is why, my friends, judges should use OUR laws.
good day
Steve Webb
My other car is an interceptor.
Steve:
First, get the facts of the case straight.
http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Spring98/ferraro.html
He wasn't charged with Murder, and the defense also used psychological disturbance as a part of its strategem.
You also forgot to add in that he was deported to China after the probation.
Now, here's an interesting role reversal:
Put yourself in <a href="http://www.ccadp.org/williamsampson-governmentactions.htm">William Sampson's</a> shoes. He was tried, convicted and sentenced by a secret court as a part of an illegal alcohol smuggling gang that used a car-bomb to take out suspected rivals. He was lawfully tried, convicted and sentenced to die in a foreign court, fully within their laws. He was given a new trial after Amnesty International caught wind of this: give representation, offered a chance to scrutinize evidence... and was given an opportunity to speak with that representative, even still, he was convicted.
Maybe, just maybe, one country does NOT have dominion over what laws are best for all people?
Hey, if you want to confine the ideals to the US of A, how about in Texas where "<a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=355&invol=28">Murder without malice</a>" (not extreme emotional disturbance) holds a man allowed to kill his wife when he suspects or even confirms her infidelity.
Is that law still in effect? No... it was struck down in 1979... Why? interestingly enough, the Case law cited Canadian, British, and Other state's laws that hold that Murder is indeed murder.
Wanna comment on that one?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
well maybe Mr. Chen should have been charged with murder. After all, he did knowingly KILL someone.
In the case of Mr. Sampson, your link does'nt really give too much info. nothing about the evidence against him or how he was associated with the crime. If he was involved in a bombing he is going to be tried, plain and simple. If he is convicted, he will pay the price. Since he is in Saudi Arabia, he is probably going to have to be tried according to the laws of that country. What just because he is from Canada he is automatically innocent? Doese'nt work like that.
The fact is you can't go to Pakistan and expect to be treated like your in your homeland. If you steal something, they might just cut your hand off or somthing ridiculous like that. By that same token, people should not be able to come to the US or Canada or wherever and expect that the laws from their country to apply. It just doesen't work like that. But lawyers across the US and probably Canada are using what is called the "cultural defense".
Look this one up.
The case of Fumiko Kimura. Who is a japanese woman who lives in California. Like Mr. Chen she found out that her spouse was having an affair. Now in her homeland of Japan, a practice called "oyako-shinju" is practiced. It means "parent-child suicide". So what did she do? Well she packed up her two young children, drove to Santa Monica, brought the two children into water that was up to her waist, and as her kids pleaded for her to stop she held their heads under water until they both drowned. Before she could drown herself she was spotted.
She, unlike Mr. Chen, WAS charged with first-degree murder in people vs. Kimura. But her lawyers used the culural defense argument in court, and guess what, Kimura was sentenced to one (1) year in prison and probation. She is now a free woman. Does that make sense?
If that story sounds familiar, it should. Susan Smith of South Carolina did pretty much the same thing a few years back. You remember, she packed her kids into the family car and drove the thing into a lake. What happened to her? She is in jail for the rest of her life. And that is Exactly where Mrs Kimura should be, rotting in prison. But because Mrs. Kimura had a cultural reason to kill her two innocent children she is free.
Anyone who knowingly kills someone should be in jail for a long time. I don't think it is really that hard to understand. But all these liberal judges and ACLU lawyers are twisting and manipulating the law to make it mean whatever the hell they want, and that is just plain dangerous. sorry if you don't like it.
Steve Webb
My other car is an interceptor.
Sorry for the ambiguity of the Sampson link... he's since been released. I'll dredge up some more info about the case, but since I'm currently at work, it's hard to do because I can't get Java and a lot of news sites use that... sucks I know...
Anyhow...
You were reading along the article I posted
That same bit about the japanese woman and her kids was in the link... good reading.
I never said that it wasn't deplorable, I'm saying that we shouldn't hold our culture as the pinnacle of society, and understanding biases and ideals in different cultures is what makes ours enlightened, and tollerant. Now, Murder is not something to be taken lightly, but as I posted about Texas: it's not like you're eons ahead of other places in the world either. Hell, if you want to get technical, Child slavery was only outlawed 60 years ago, women were only recognised as "people" after 1935, there's a lot of other inequities that exist legally still, but they're not generally followed.
The point I'm trying to make is that there are a lot of problems with the US justice system, but it's always changing to meet the demands of society in the USA, basically, you see the punishment fit the individual and the crime. I'm no judge, but 5 years probation and psychiatric help (or 1 year prison, psychiatric help and/or deportation) should fit the crime AND the person.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Canadian One) wrote:Sorry for the ambiguity of the Sampson link... he's since been released. I'll dredge up some more info about the case, but since I'm currently at work, it's hard to do because I can't get Java and a lot of news sites use that... sucks I know...
Anyhow...
You were reading along the article I posted That same bit about the japanese woman and her kids was in the link... good reading.
I never said that it wasn't deplorable, I'm saying that we shouldn't hold our culture as the pinnacle of society, and understanding biases and ideals in different cultures is what makes ours enlightened, and tollerant. Now, Murder is not something to be taken lightly, but as I posted about Texas: it's not like you're eons ahead of other places in the world either. Hell, if you want to get technical, Child slavery was only outlawed 60 years ago, women were only recognised as "people" after 1935, there's a lot of other inequities that exist legally still, but they're not generally followed.
The point I'm trying to make is that there are a lot of problems with the US justice system, but it's always changing to meet the demands of society in the USA, basically, you see the punishment fit the individual and the crime. I'm no judge, but 5 years probation and psychiatric help (or 1 year prison, psychiatric help and/or deportation) should fit the crime AND the person.
No one is saying that there isnt anything wrong with the justice system. Laws are laws. The Constitution is the Constitution. If you dont like how the Constitution is written then it gives congress the right to make amendments. Until the amendment gets passed saying Supreme Court Justices can cite other nations laws, if they do now then they are breaking the law, its plain and simple. I do not see what is so hard to understand.
Rollin 24 wrote:No one is saying that there isnt anything wrong with the justice system. Laws are laws. The Constitution is the Constitution. If you dont like how the Constitution is written then it gives congress the right to make amendments. Until the amendment gets passed saying Supreme Court Justices can cite other nations laws, if they do now then they are breaking the law, its plain and simple. I do not see what is so hard to understand.
The problem is that the Constitution isn't this all inclousive, magical doctrine that you think it is. Did you know that Congress doesn't have the power to create and maintain and Air Force? The Constitution actually only grants power to Congress to maintiain land and sea forces.
The problem is that times change and that when a lawsuit arises, it arises in a very specific context. Most of the time, a decision reaches the Supreme Court because the constitution doens't say anything about it. If a case was easily decided, then it would be heard by the Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court would deny certiori. I forget the exact statistic, but it is only like 1% of cases ever reach the Supreme Court. Those cases are there partly because of their difficulty of clarification and the opportunity for the court to decide them.
Simply put, not everything can be decided by the Constitution. To think so is naive.
