Scotus rules on child rape

Please don't tell me that you are going to sit there and say that congress doesn't have the power to limit/control the appellate juridsdiction of the supreme court because 28 U.S.C. 1251, 1253, 1254, and 1257-1259 would be in disagreement with you.
Click to expand...

For God's sake, read those statutes.

The Congress cannot limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to decide cases arising under the Constitution.

It's a very, very simple concept.
 
A Massachusetts politician and defense attorney has touched off a firestorm with his shocking public vow to torment and "rip apart" child rape victims who take the witness stand if the state legislature passed stiff mandatory sentences for child sex offenders.

Rep. James Fagan, a Democrat, made the comments during debate last month on the state House floor.

"I'm gonna rip them apart," Fagan said of young victims during his testimony on the bill. "I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they’re 8 years old, they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”

Fagan said as a defense attorney it would be his duty to do that in order to keep his clients free from a "mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions."

Fagan did not respond to repeated requests for comment from FOXNews.com.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but feels like it belongs in this thread.

My opinion is that if the child is very young, (ie 12 or under) and significant proof is found of the rape, as in DNA, or whatever, that the suspect should be killed IMMEDIATELY. Dragged from the courtroom upon genuine physical PROOF of his act, and hung immediately, preferably in public.

When did this country become so sick that this isn't the norm? When did it become okay even to CONSIDER letting these people live after destroying a CHILD? And I am especially sick at people who claim in other threads to be ALL ABOUT THE CHILDREN NO MATTER WHAT, but in this thread, protecting the children doesn't seem to matter so much.

We're not talking about 14-15 year olds accusing 20 year old boyfriends because they got mad at them or scared, and some stupid guy might get killed. NO. We are talking about SICK BASTARDS, who take INFANTS, and TODDLERS, and children under 12, and brutally RAPE, SODOMIZE, and TORTURE them.

It really makes me sick to even remotely associate with anyone who would think that the above mentioned people would not need to die. (and again, I speak of instances where an overwhelming amount of physical evidence or a confession exists)
 
MedicineBow, the section you quoted is not wholly valid and hasn't been since the 11th amendment was ratified in 1794.

Article III, section 2, clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The above was modified with: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

As for Original Jurisdiction, clause 2 set it out as: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

So you see, you would not have that mistake had you read the entire Constitution.
 
The only criminals that this ruling will affect are two men in Louisiana who were awaiting the death penalty, for raping young girls aged 5 and 8. Louisiana is the only state that mandated the death penalty for raping children less than 12 years old. The states of Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas allowed the penalty as an option. For Georgia, there was disagreement over whether it could still be imposed there or not.

The bottom line is that this was already the law in 44 of the total 50 states. So the Supreme Court's action simply extended it to these 6 other states as well.

Justice Kennedy is definitely the swing vote on the court. You have 4 liberal justices and 4 conservative ones. With Kennedy in the middle, and often deciding which side prevails in a 5-4 vote.

Kennedy argued that the death penalty must be reserved for only the most heinous acts imaginable. Apparently these acts do not include raping 5 and 8 year olds, in his opinion.

.
 
The Congress cannot limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to decide cases arising under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Its very simple. Congress cannot change the original jurisdiction of the supreme court. They can change the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court. I can't make it any plainer than that.... oh wait I can

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.


EDIT: Nevermind, Al beat me to it.
 
You can't say its perfectly ok to use societal norms for the 8th amendment, but not for the 1st, or the 2nd or whatever part of the constitution we are talking about.
Click to expand...

The sixth? Anyone who knows what "cruel and unusual" means should also be able to figure out what "speedy" means. ;)
 
Mr. Gordon

On what grounds is it unconstituional for the federal government to ensure that citizens are not abused by the states?
Click to expand...

According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.“

I know, I know, once the SCOTUS rules, it is part of the Constitution. But that does not prohibit anyone from questioning a ruling. Not yet, anyway. This, and Boumediene, Kelo and other contra-common sense rulings have made me wonder if the 4+1 left wing SCOTUS members care about the Constitution, or are trying to impose their political philosophy on the US, in direct opposition to the electorate.
 
I think I'm going to agree with Stage2 on this one.

While I don't support the death penalty for any crime other than treason, I really don't like Justice Kennedy's reason - that the ruling was based on trends and "concensus" if you will.

I thought the reason why SCOTUS judges are appointed rather than elected, and have no term limits, was so they were not so easily motivated by thoughts of reelection, that they could not be swayed by the whims and fads of current politics or Gallup polls, and that they would not cave to pressure of the too-often tyranny of the majority. That the only rules they submit to are those of the Constitution and precedent.

I think this point is also the intent of the OP. We can all argue for or against capital punishment until this tread gets locked. The more important thing is how Kennedy came to the decision.
 
I think this point is also the intent of the OP. We can all argue for or against capital punishment until this tread gets locked. The more important thing is how Kennedy came to the decision.
Click to expand...

Bingo. The wisdom of a law is the responsibility of the legislature. Whether its constitutionally permissible is the responsibility of scotus. To reference brother Stewart, "we are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that I cannot do."

There are plenty of laws that are terrible and asinine that are perfectly constitutional. Its not the job of the courts to correct this. We've come so far from how the system is supposed to work that the legislature no longer has any accountability for the laws they pass since the courts will just take care of it. Thats not how things were supposed to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top