SCOTUS is broken

Unless you lived in a cave this week (lucky you!) -you have heard about that the vaunted nine judges in black robes handed down a couple of decisions as their current term closed. I shall focus on two of the decisions to illustrate my frustrations.

1) In Kennedy v. Louisiana - The death penalty for child rapists was held to be unconstitutional. The case stem from a step-father raping his eight year old step-daughter. This crime was violent to the point the little girl had to have emergency surgery to put all of her parts back in the right place. Dirtbag lived in a state that allowed, though did not mandate, the death penalty for rape of a child under 12.

The court found that it was a violation of the Eighth Amendments ban on 'cruel and ununusual' punishment. Now, I will grant you that 'cruel and unusual' is in the eye of the beholder. But, we know the death penalty is not 'cruel'. How do we know this? Because we have the death penalty in this country. It is allowed by SCOTUS, hence, by definition, it is not cruel. Is it unusual? The public says 'no more unusual than the rape of a child.'

But this is how they approached it, as the majority opinion stated, as the basis for their ruling: "The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child."

What? Really? SCOTUS is in a position to decide that? I think not. The people, through our elected representatives beg to differ. The people of Louisiana felt it was completely proportional.

Another gem from the ruling: "After reviewing the authorities informed by contemporary norms, including the history of the death penalty for this and other nonhomicide crimes, current state statutes and new enactments, and the number of executions since 1964, we conclude there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of rape."

Huh? We do not want the court deciding 'National Consensus'. That, again, is what the ballot box is for. Voting is the perfect tool for determining 'consensus'.

The court also said that this case violated 'evolving standards of decency'. Again - ever hear of the ballot box. Are we too stupid to recognize the 'current' standard of decency?

So, this is what I see as the major malfunction in this ruling: SCOTUS took what should be an issue left for the ballot box - told us that voters are clearer either too stupid, too blinded by revenge, or too mis-informed about the 'rest of the world' to decide such an issue. I say 'bull-pucky'. SCOTUS should leave this type of decision to US. We can decide what is 'proportional', 'decent', and express our 'concensus' without your help.

2) - Overturing the DC gun ban (Heller v. DC). The real issue was whether the Second Amendment (which, btw, comes right after the First) spoke of an individual right or a collective right. Now, I have held for a long time that this was a b-s issue. The only reason this 'collective rights' argument got hatched: some people do not like guns. Period. They don't like the result (armed citizens) - so they have to attack the underlying right. The only way to that: do what liberals always do: re-define words and phrases to mean something else. 'Taxes' become 'contributions' is my favorite.

Now, one of my issues with this ruling: the fact that four of the justices dissented. My God! How fully has politics invaded the court!! Having read the opinions and the dissents - let me say this about that: The dissenters just don't like guns - and (wrongly) think more guns cause more crime. They started there - and worked backwards. They attempted to frame their dislike in legal mumbo-jumbo. But, in the end, their anti-gun bias shines through. The arguments, with few exceptions, are so weak that I am suprised they actually put them on paper. Scalia did a great job of slamming them down.

The other thing that makes me sad concerning this - the fact that we had to have a case before SCOTUS at all. The fact that we have people in this country who hate liberty (other peoples's) to the point where they are willing to act like they really believe on of the Bills of Rights actually refers to the right of the State.... Are you kidding me?