'International opinion' hardly justifies ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the law cannot execute minors younger than 18, no matter how heinous their crimes. The ruling overturned 72 death sentences in 12 states.
The ruling came after Missouri's highest court overturned the death sentence given to Christopher Simmons, who was 17 in 1993 when he kidnapped a neighbor, Shirley Crook, hog-tied her and while she was still alive threw her off a bridge to drown. Prosecutors say he planned the burglary and killing of the woman. This murderous thug had bragged that he could get away with the brutal killing because of his age. The Supreme Court proved he was right.
Speaking for the majority in a 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he said, is to abolish the practice because "our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal."
Incredibly, he invoked "international opinion" as a justification for letting teenage killers off the hook.
"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime," he wrote.
In his blistering dissent, an outraged Justice Antonin Scalia argued that there is no trend and chastised his colleagues for taking power from the states.
"The court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: 'In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty,'" he wrote.
"The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards," Scalia wrote.
And by allowing "international opinion" to color their rulings, the justices have thrown both the Constitution of the United States and our national sovereignty into the trash heap.
This ruling proves once again that Mark Levin was right when he wrote that in everything from same-sex marriage, illegal immigration and economic socialism to partial birth abortion, political speech, and terrorists' "rights," judges have abused their constitutional mandate by imposing their personal prejudices and left-wing beliefs on the rest of society.
According to Levin, no radical political movement has been more effective in undermining our system of government than the judiciary. And we, the people, should not put up with it, he insists.
Moreover, a judiciary that turns its back on the Constitution and the laws of the land to embrace foreign law and international opinion is a dagger pointed at the heart of individual liberty.