Judicial Downfall

Last week the Supreme Court made it unconstitutional to execute a criminal for a crime he or she committed while a juvenile. I don't have a problem with the ruling itself, but I think several points that they use to substatiate their point are quite disturbing. First, in the majority ruling the court cited a "national consensus" against the practice. This is quite strange for the court to be following the will of the people. Typically they are suppose to judge as to the legality of the law, not take a national poll. Their is a national consensus that there should be some restriction on abortion, but don't hold your breath on that one. Consequently as Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent that the "national consensus" that the court eluded to was actually only 18 states that limit execution of minors of the 38 dealt penalty states. This 47 percent of states that limit execution apparently constitutes a "national consensus." Second, in the majority opinion the court writes, "From a moral standpoint, it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed." So now all of a sudden the court is guided by morals. Where were the morals when NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) was posting how to successfully kidnap and molest children. Third, the court writes, "Our determination, 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." I find it quite disturbing that the court is following international law. How long until lawyers cite laws from any nation to substantiate their clients actions. Their is no reason to base the Supreme Courts decision on the opinion of the U.S. much less the laws of the rest of the world. In this ruling Justice Scalia read his dissent aloud to the court, a sign of strong disapproval.