No, not that Kennedy. I'm talking Justice Anthony Kennedy, aka Ol' Swingy (as in swing vote). Today, the Supreme Court issued an opinion of the Louisiana state law that required the death penalty in cases involving child rape (not necessarily where the child was killed, just rape). The opinion was 5-4 AGAINST, effectively declaring the Louisiana law to be unconstitutional.
Kennedy was the swing vote - just like in the Guantanamo detainee decision not too long ago, granting the rights we enjoy as US citizens to enemy combatants. I won't go into that here. But my point is, I expected Justices Stephens and Breyer and the other 2 to vote they way they did - to declare the law unconstitutional. Since Kennedy was appointed back in 1988, he has been a swing voter in several cases. In my opinion, he tends (somewhat) towards a libertarian stance, rather than a strict liberal or conservative leaning. And because of that, I would have expected him to side with now minority opinion (making it the majority), simply because as a fellow libertarian (lowercase 'l') the federal government should butt out where it has no business being involved.
Here's my case - feel free to disagree. The SC decision today basically says to the states that they have no right to determine when and where the death penalty can be applied - it is a federal issue. Yes, the majority opinion (written by Kennedy, I believe) said something to the effect that the death penalty is not proportional to the crime ( child rape). And although the crime is horrendous, certainly, I tend to agree with that position. The death penalty shouldn't apply when someone did not die, regardless of the horrific nature of the crime committed.
The court, however, (or rather, the majority opinion) is using it's dislike of the law itself (in a fit of judicial 'legislating from the bench') to form it's opinion. The issue here isn't whether Louisiana 's law is a bad idea - it's whether states have the right and the power to decide the punishments for crimes as they see fit. As I read the Constitution, I see a Federal government assigned certain very explicit powers, AND limitations, and anything not assigned to the federal level is reserved for the states. Period. The states are supposed to be laboratories of democracy - each state decides it's laws and how it functions (under the umbrella of the federal govt, of course), and today the SC struck a blow against state's rights and the US Constitution. Louisiana (and the other 9 states who had similar laws) were ill-served by their Supreme Court today - score one for the Federalists.
Just some thoughts.
Flickr
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
ok first of all when I saw the title in my feedreader I was all BLASPHEMER!! Glad you didn't mean "that" Kennedy!
Now - first of all I agree that the supreme court may be overstepping it's bounds here however the whole state sovereignty issue isn't exactly new.
My problem is with the whole issue of death penalty only being imposed where someone actually died as opposed to child rape. How old is the child? Rape is always horrific but I have no problem imposing the death penalty on some piece of human detritus that rapes a two year old while I'm a bit ambivalent about putting some guy who shoots another in the middle of a drug buy. See my problem? This is why I would never be able to be a judge. I would end up hanging myself because to me there are always degrees.
I agree with you at first thought - the idea of someone raping a child makes my blood boil. Of course he should be put to death. But when I try to separate the visceral reaction from a more rational approach to it, I just don't think the death penalty should apply unless someone was murdered. If some guy raped my daughter or son, then I will kill them myself. Not very Christian, but that would be my feelings. But that's why we don't let the victims decide the punishment.
But my whole point of that post was that the great people of Louisiana should be able to decide how they wish to punish child rapists. I really like the Constitution's stance on state's rights, and our Federal govt (Pres, Congress, and the SC) are slowly and steadily depriving the states' of their sovereignty. Against what the Constitution says, I believe. But that's just my two cents.
Not sure but according to someone verrryyy close to me - the civil war was NOT about slavery but about states rights. Talk about a can of worms LOL
This person verrrry close to you is exactly right. Although slavery was the "key issue" at the heart of the civil war, it was about the federal government trying to gang up on the states. I'm glad they got rid of slavery, of course - but the Civil War was the result of years of economic oppression (well, that's kinda strong) by the federal govt, mostly against the southern states. (Tarriffs, taxes, etc). I'd have to go brush up on US history to recall the details.
I assume you did not agree with the decision. I couldn't tell by your comments.
Gee, I thought it was pretty obvious what I thought about it.
:)
Post a Comment