Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch
I think you are getting a little carried away about one decision. The application of the 8th Amendment to prohibit anything is an extreme rarity. The notion that this decision in any way means, or even suggests, "that everything that most Americans agree is true should become a condition of a state's membership" in the union is an absurdity.
Another absurdity is the statement that "It's like saying states are laboratories of democracy, but once 26 of them have announced there's no way to turn lead into gold all the others have to give up, too." The word "consensus" has more than one meaning, and I don't believe that the definition that is similar to "majority" was being used here. And there are enough cases on the 8th Amendment to suggest that the federal courts don't do anything of the sort -- that you are just creating a bugbear of "26 states can control the nation".
The decision means nothing more than that the Constitution, in certain arenas, imposes boundaries that states have to stay within. Those boundaries are, and should be, very broad. You may not have drawn them at "LWOP for juveniles who did not kill anyone," but getting so exercised over the fact that 6 justices* did, or reading into that decision a significance equivalent to, say, the long-term impact of Roe v. Wade is getting a little carried away.
*Was it 5 or 6? Your link said 6, NYTimes said 5, and I can't remember if Roberts concurred in the ruling without joining the opinion or if he opposed without joining the dissent.
|
It's kind of my thing here to get all exercised over minor developments, and I got such little affirmation here when I denounced
Kennedy v. Louisiana as just straight-up legislation from the bench, that I thought I would remind everyone that we're slouching towards Gomorrah yet again. Don't come crying to me when the Supreme Court rules that punishing people who shoot abortion providers is cruel and unusual because it is against a "national consensus" set by a bunch of red state laws.
