The United States Supreme Court yesterday proved how utterly out of touch they are, from the Constitution of the United States and the general welfare of the people.
In the case of Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Simmons, the USSC ruled 5 to 4 that a murderer who kills his/her victims before the felon reaches his/her 18th birthday, cannot be executed for that crime, regardless of any factors meriting such a punishment.
Justice Kennedy wrote the majority decision, and in so doing cited the 8th and 14th Amendments were violated in assigning the death penalty to Christopher Simmons, for the crime of premeditated murder. Not only did Simmons admit he planned the murder beforehand, bragged about it afterwards to numerous persons, he also recruited Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer into the crime with the specific promise that 'they could "get away with it" because they were minors'. In short, Justice Kennedy assisted a murderer in his effort to suborn the consequences of his crime.
Justice Kennedy claimed a "national consensus against the death penalty for juveniles", but faild to cite compelling evidence supporting such a claim. Further, Kennedy failed to address the clear distinction between a child being put to death, against the fact of a man not even arrested and tried for the crime until he was legally an adult, as in Simmons' case. Kennedy cited a 1968 sociology book as if it were empirical evidence (Identity: Youth and Crisis, by E. Erikson (c)1968) , and demanded that the United States submit to International Consensus ("the Court has referred to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments"). Kennedy even cited treaties to which the U.S. is neither signatory nor participant!
Justice Stevens concurred with Kennedy, claiming that "our understanding of the Constitution does change from time to time", going so far as to claim that Alexander Hamilton, were he alive today, would agree with Justice Kennedy.
Justice O'Connor dissented, stating bluntly "The Court's decision today establishes a categorical rule forbidding the execution of any offender for any crime committed before his 18th birthday, no matter how deliberate, wanton, or cruel the offense. Neither the objective evidence of contemporary societal values, nor the Court's moral proportionality analysis, nor the two in tandem suffice to justify this ruling." O'Connor went on to note, "the Court has adduced no evidence impeaching the seemingly reasonable conclusion reached by many state legislatures: that at least some 17-year-old murderers are sufficiently mature to deserve the death penalty in an appropriate case. Nor has it been shown that capital sentencing juries are incapable of accurately assessing a youthful defendant's maturity or of giving due weight to the mitigating characteristics associated with youth."
Justice Scalia also dissented, stating "What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years--not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed". Scalia went on to observe "the Court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter". Scalia also noted "the basic premise of the Court's argument--that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world--ought to be rejected out of hand. In fact the Court itself does not believe it. In many significant respects the laws of most other countries differ from our law--including not only such explicit provisions of our Constitution as the right to jury trial and grand jury indictment, but even many interpretations of the Constitution prescribed by this Court itself. The Court-pronounced exclusionary rule, for example, is distinctively American".
The damage is done, and here is where we stand now:
 Convicted murderers have their lives and health protected to a degree they have never enjoyed before, even as the unborn child has no legal protection whatsoever, innocent as it is;
 The U.S. Supreme Court does not allow States to decide the punishment for capital crimes, regardless of the will of the voters;
 The U.S. Supreme Court does not trust juries to make the appropriate decision in the specific cases of heinous crimes;
 The U.S. Supreme Court does not trust the United States Constitution to mean what it says, but demands an "evolving" interpretation;
 Unelected judges, unanswerable to any authority on this earth, have taken upon themselves powers only seen up to now in the hands of dictators and tyrants, without any Constitutional authority or consent of the people affected by their decisions;
 A message has just been sent to teen gangs and violent youth offenders, that they will not be held accountable for their actions to the same degree as adults. That is, the U.S. Supreme Court has just validated the gang technique of using juveniles for violent crimes, knowing they will escape the most serious consequences;
 The United States Supreme Court has sent the clearest possible message, that they do not consider themselves bound by the restrictions and responsibilities that other branches of government must accept. Accordingly, there can no longer be any doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court must be reformed to redress this violation of the Constitutional apportionment of powers.
In case you wondered if it still matters who you vote for in Senate of Presidential races (2006-2008-2010), consider where we will be if certain parties or ideologies win these races.
Mr. Frist, it's time for the talk to end, and to "go Nuclear" NOW in the Senate, to make sure we get sober, sane, judges on the bench. We simply cannot take the chance that even more justices like Ginsberg, Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, or Breyer will get their claws into power.