Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Gary Bauer goes ape

So what else is new? This time it's on today's SCOTUS ruling striking down the execution of minors:
Tyranny Of The Courts

The Supreme Court has just ruled, by a 5-to-4 vote, that the Constitution forbids the execution of convicted killers who were under the age of eighteen when they committed their crime. The high court said such executions are unconstitutionally cruel. As a result of this decision the laws of 19 states have been struck down.

Thus the Supreme Court, the same court that says our Constitution requires us to permit innocent unborn children to be destroyed at any time, even up to the moment of birth, has concluded that the Constitution would prohibit us from executing Dylan Klebold, one of the Columbine murderers, because he was 17-years old at the time of his murder spree.

So far, so good. I don't agree that abortion is the murder of a child, but if I did, the ruling might set me off as well.

But then Bauer gets down to what's really irritating him:
But it gets even worse. Justice Kennedy, who was part of the majority once again, cited other nations as a partial basis for his decision. Here is the quote:

“Our determination that the death penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18 finds confirmation in the stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty.”

Kennedy went on to signal clearly that this is just the beginning. He points out that the Court is building a tradition of referring “to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation” of the Constitution.

Justice Scalia wrote a blistering response mocking the court’s majority decision, saying in part, “Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.”

My friends, don’t miss what is happening here. Even if some agree that juveniles should not be eligible for the death penalty, that decision should be made by the people of the United States expressing our will through our elected officials.

As free men and women we have the right to fully debate the issue and then act accordingly in our states. Nineteen states have decided juveniles may be executed for heinous crimes. The rest of our states have decided that is not the approach they want.

Under no circumstances should laws passed by the British Parliament, the French National Assembly, the German Bundestag or the European Union be a factor in deciding what is a permissible decision by the American people in our own self-governance.

While we are nobly trying to expand liberty in the Middle East, inattention to these judicial outrages is in danger of undermining liberty here.

Our only solution is a major change in who sits on the courts – a change unlikely to take place unless the White House and Congress move boldly to dismantle the Senate filibuster “road block” that threatens to stymie President Bush’s efforts to restore balance.

Eliminating the filibuster of judicial nominees has been called, incorrectly, a “nuclear option,” meaning it is a radical solution. But the real radicalism is coming down on us from the courts, disguised in the cloak of judicial legitimacy.

So what's the point here? Moral consistency or partisan advantage on judicial appointments?


Post a Comment

<< Home