EDITORIAL: 'The Kennedy Court'

The real issue here is capital punishment not who the justice system can administer it against. The Supreme Court gave up their interpretation right for "cruel and unusual punishment" when abrogated capital punishment responsibilities to the states. It is a Ponitius Pilate iterative approach to eliminating capital punishment without the consequences of a divisive constitutional decision. If 300 million standards of decency are evolving, those standards should be changed through legislation, per the Constitution, NOT through the constitutional interpretation of nine individuals.

The Washington Times, one of several newspapers I read daily, view of the decision made by the Supreme Court is the only paper that understands that the constitution is the ONLY protection an individual has. The Constitution is not about groups, parties, majorities, minorities, capitalism, or Flag waving. It is none of those. It is about an individual. We do not need to be a part of any group. In my opinion this case, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, specifically the death penalty in the case of child rape and the Second Amendment case are related. Anthony Kennedy, who, if I am not mistaken, wrote the Majority opinion regarding the Death Penalty as it pertains to Child Rape. Kennedy wrote-that while studying the Eight Amendment one must consider the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" This is a rational statement? especially from a Supreme court judge. It sounds more like a line from talk show. Does Kennedy have some knowledge as to how the nature of man has advanced in the last 200 plus years, or ten thousand years? If the harshest of all "punishments", put in place to protect the most vulnerable and defenseless, is not a deterrent to even one person, what is the point of any law. Not being flippant but what happened to "do it for the children"? So, in my opinion, Kennedy wrote the Majority Opinion on.... well I don't know what reasoning he used. This man is ignorant-he is lacking information. He is a blatant coward. He dares not protect the individual due to his fear of a group. Kennedy opposed the majority decision, as did three other judges, on the Second Amendment, . I have no actual number but of the many people I have talked with, not one understood what the case was about. If I am correct, the total ban on hand guns was only part of the law in question. It is what started the law suit. The rest of the law was that "no one", in the area where the law was passed, in their own home, could have "any" firearm that was functional. It appears that, in his opinion, the protection of someone breaking into a person's home is more important than the security and protection of the persons with in that home. His opinion is that we cannot protect ourselves, our home and family much less hope to protect someone else's child. We can no longer expect Justice from our courts we can only hope for mercy from our assailants. Brad Carrington. I need no group, I have the Constitution.

I agree this is a bad decision by the Supreme Court. Not the first one, nor will it be the last one. However, using terms like, "breathtaking in its arrogance and condecension", "cannot expect justice from our courts", "superlegislature:, or "tyranny of the courts" undermines the authority of the Courts. I know it makes good copy. Produces a nice emotional reaction in the reader or listener and that makes for more readers/listeners and more money for the writer/speaker but serves no purpose other then the selfish interest of the writer. In fact it hurts the country by undermining one of the pillars of our constitutional framework. It leads to monstrously self serving articles like Allan Nathan's where he calls for the impeachment of justices who render bad decisions. Tough. Live with it. Millions have had to live with bad decisions by the Supreme Court, e.g. Dred Scott. Bad decisions are NOT grounds for impeachment and as much as we hate them these expressions undermine the framework of the Constitution. Please stop it

P.S. There are real simple "human" explanations for Justices decisions like this. I don't remember who it was but in the later part of his tenure on the Court he had seen so many death sentence cases, he had finally felt the death penalty should simply be outlawed. That it's implementation was so badly handled in so many cases he could no longer take it and felt it should be outlawed. No "liberal arrogance". Just a man worn out from seeing too much injustice. Simple human fraility. Nothing worth demonizing anyone over. But I guess that doesn't get anyone's blood boiling about those damn liberals who hate America.