SCOTUS recently wrote a new law, or perhaps Constitutional change.
They decided it was now illegal to execute a person for a capital crime committed under the age of 18 years. That is 'new' - whether one calls it a law, and amendment, or just policy.
What is even more egregious is the rationale of the majority opinion. This decision was not made on U. S. law, usage and precedent, but on 'foreign law' and the Justices perception of 'world opinion'. For those not familiar with the U. S. judiciary and court system, decisions traditionally have been made, and I'll go so far as to say supposed to be made, on U. S. Constitution, U. S. laws and statues, and various state and local laws pertinent to the matter.
When a U. S. judge says in effect, "I see what the Constitution and laws say, but I want to change the law based on my own agenda", that portion of the judiciary is 'out of order'. The U. S. has prided itself on being a nation of law, not men. This refers to our principle of following the Constitution and established laws, and not constantly altering the 'system' for either individuals or specific cases. When any judge can alter the law to fit his or her own agenda, we are in trouble.
The Supreme Court Justices who wrote the "Murdering Juvenile Protection Act of 2005" are wrong. The issue itself notwithstanding, that of giving anyone under the age of 18 a free pass to commit murder in any and all circumstances, the real problem is that of principle. No nation can survive such random fluctuations in the legal system. No edifice can stand if the foundation constantly shifts, or sways in the breeze of political correctness.
They decided it was now illegal to execute a person for a capital crime committed under the age of 18 years. That is 'new' - whether one calls it a law, and amendment, or just policy.
What is even more egregious is the rationale of the majority opinion. This decision was not made on U. S. law, usage and precedent, but on 'foreign law' and the Justices perception of 'world opinion'. For those not familiar with the U. S. judiciary and court system, decisions traditionally have been made, and I'll go so far as to say supposed to be made, on U. S. Constitution, U. S. laws and statues, and various state and local laws pertinent to the matter.
When a U. S. judge says in effect, "I see what the Constitution and laws say, but I want to change the law based on my own agenda", that portion of the judiciary is 'out of order'. The U. S. has prided itself on being a nation of law, not men. This refers to our principle of following the Constitution and established laws, and not constantly altering the 'system' for either individuals or specific cases. When any judge can alter the law to fit his or her own agenda, we are in trouble.
The Supreme Court Justices who wrote the "Murdering Juvenile Protection Act of 2005" are wrong. The issue itself notwithstanding, that of giving anyone under the age of 18 a free pass to commit murder in any and all circumstances, the real problem is that of principle. No nation can survive such random fluctuations in the legal system. No edifice can stand if the foundation constantly shifts, or sways in the breeze of political correctness.