Today on Blogcritics
Home » Humor, At The Expense Of The USSC

Humor, At The Expense Of The USSC

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

A recent 5-4 USSC ruling banned states from executing murderers who committed their crimes before turning 18. Justice Kennedy, a supposed “conservative” on the Court, wrote the majority opinion.

In it, he cited the laws of foreign countries as helping him arrive at his decision in this case. This, of course, weakens our sovereignty and is therefore, ironically, unconstitutional.

At any rate, I found this bit of satire on the Court’s decision uproariously funny. I hope you do too.

Powered by

About RJ

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    That piece was low humor – it is crass to equate the death penalty with bureaucratic laws. Playing to the gallery is a weak way of projecting an opinion. Seems to work, though, in these times.

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    I wouldn’t have minded 3 oxen myself, though – disease-free ones:)

  • Maurice

    Very funny and clever. I especially laughed at the decision to declare themselves unconstitutional (which was then overturned). The late term abortion thing was funny also.

    On a more serious note: Does anyone now doubt that they are making laws vs. interpreting them?

  • Eric Olsen

    it is their job to correct poorly-made laws: if this is “making law” then so be it

    Earl Warren rules

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    I personally don’t think killing an 18 year old waste of human flesh to be a poorly-mad law.

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    Does Behroz(24) deserve the death penalty?

  • Eric Olsen

    society’s desire for revenge is a very dangerous tendency and must be kept on a short leash – the bottom line is that children, and we define the barrier at 18, are not the same as adults and if we recognize this in regard to privileges we must be consistent and recognize this in regard to responsibilities and penalties

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Yes, but will grooms who married before the age of 18 get all three cows?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    I joined the navy when I was 17, yeah, my parents had to sign me in, but hey, guys like Malvo who’s 18 now, deserve the death penalty! I have a hard time buying off on that young and naive BS.

  • Eric Olsen

    it’s not “young and naive” or that children can’t be evil, or that the crimes are any less ehinous: it’s about society acknowledging that children are not as culpable as adults for their actions just as they are not given the same rights as adults for the same reasons

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    I understand what you’re saying Eric. I just don’t agree with it! I can understand say, 16 as the age, but by the time your 18, I believe you should be able to rationalize and be held accountable for your actions.

  • Eric Olsen

    it’s for crimes committed BEFORE they turn 18 only

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    So, if a deranged homicidal maniac slaughters an entire family the day before his 18th birthday, he’s not to be held fully accountable for his actions? Sounds silly to me.

    Also, the USSC is simply making shit up at this point. They cite an “evolving” 8th Amendment, despite the fact that the 8th Amendment has remained totally unchanged for over 200 years. They also cite laws in the EU, as if that is somehow relevant to American law.

    Five unelected judges have essentially disenfranchised the millions of American voters in those states that allowed the death penalty for 16 and 17 year old murderers. Instead of state legislatures writing laws, the federal courts are MAKING UP laws.

    The legislative branch of government is the one that is supposed to be writing laws. The judicial branch is merely supposed to interpret them.

    We bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq, but here at home we now live under a judicial tyranny. F-ing wonderful…

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    If he is deranged – he won’t be accountable in any case – liable for the death penalty, I mean

  • Eric Olsen

    there are several issues here:

    there will always be absurdities at the borders of barriers, but making barriers is part of what the law does. Would a person be allowed to vote if they missed the deadline by one day? No.

    we are not talking about “not being accountable”: we are just talking about not being eligible for the death penalty

    our government is managed by checks and balances: it is the job of the judiciary to draw the line when laws are passed that violate the constitution. Obviously that is up for interpretation

    as has been said many times in these pages, the majority isn’t always right – that’s why we are a republic rather than a strict democracy, and that is why we have judicial review. Often it is the judiciary that leads the way on matters that are unpopular at the time, but come to be accepted as commonplace later on

  • Maurice

    “it is their job to correct poorly-made laws: if this is “making law” then so be it”

    This is not true. They are to be arbiters of the law not law makers.

    (comment #4)

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    I’m not sure what the problem is. The SC decides whether or not a law is constitutional. And then in their opinions they explain how they drew their conclusion(s).

    Would we prefer that they simply hand down the ruling with no explanation of how they arrived at it?

  • sydney

    “In it, he cited the laws of foreign countries as helping him arrive at his decision in this case. This, of course, weakens our sovereignty and is therefore, ironically, unconstitutional.”

    — you have to be fuckin kidding me?
    or maybe you were andI’m just really slow.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Would we prefer that they simply hand down the ruling with no explanation of how they arrived at it?<<

    No, we’d prefer that they said “we read the Constitution” and then “we read laws based on past interpretations of the Constitution in similar situations to this one” and then “based on that we came up with this answer.”

    What we’d rather they didn’t say was that we borrowed from the legal system used by the Wizard of Oz or Idi Amin or the UN in making our decision – because those legal precedents aren’t actually relevant.

    Dave