SCOTUS Rules Against Mandatory Life without Parole Sentences for Juvenile Murderers

 Posted by on 6/25/2012  2 Responses »
Jun 252012
 

The key word in that title is mandatory.

SCOTUS had a big day today, with decisons on Arizona’s immigration law and Montana’s ant-Citizens United law.

The first case ruled on today though involved a juvenile sentenced to life without parole for a crime committed at 14. That law was overturned 5-4, with the court ruling that it violates the Eighth Amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment. Kagan wrote the majority opinion, and Alito the dissent.

More on the decision (and as-to-be-expected gloating and cheering) from the Huffington Post:

The Supreme Court on Monday abolished the imposition of mandatory sentences of life without parole for all juveniles convicted of murder.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the 5-4 majority, said, “By requiring that all children convicted of homicide receive lifetime incarceration without possibility of parole, regardless of their age and age-related characteristics and the nature of their crimes, the mandatory sentencing schemes before us violate this principle of proportionality, and so the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.”

The ruling that such sentences violate the Eighth Amendment continues the juvenile justice reform movement’s streak of victories at the high court over the last decade. In 2005, the justices eliminated the death penalty for minors. In 2010, the court struck down life-without-parole sentences for all juveniles convicted of non-homicide offenses. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion both times, joined by the court’s four-justice liberal bloc.

In the two cases decided together on Monday, Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs, Kennedy once again sided with the liberals — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Kagan made it clear that her opinion did not impact those juvenile homicide offenders who had been sentenced to life without parole in states where it was not mandatory. Monday’s opinion, the majority wrote, struck down only those sentencing regimes that prevent a jury from considering a juvenile’s “chronological age and its hallmark features — among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences,” as well as “the family and home environment that surrounds him — and from which he cannot usually extricate himself — no matter how brutal or dysfunctional.”

To be clear…a 17 year old rabid, murdering animal can still be sentenced to life without parole by a jury of his peers; it just can’t be mandatory. So there’s still some good news that sane and justice-seeking juries will still sentence deserving animals accordingly (and voluntarily).

The ruling does not have an affect in Texas, because our own state courts ruled that juveniles could not be sentenced to life without parole for murder. In 2005 the Texas Legislature voted to let jurors choose life without parole or execution for capital murder (SCOTUS banned executing juvenile killers in 2005), however, in 2009 the law was amended to ban no-parole sentences for those who committed murder while younger than 18.

As I’ve said these rulings are slippery slope. Opponents of the death penalty argue that it’s cruel and unusual, and argue for a life sentence instead. Once SCOTUS rules that the death penalty cannot be applied, they then argue that Life without parole is cruel and unusual.

So what’s next? Arguing that a 20 year sentence is cruel and unusual? What’s the end game of the pro-criminal agenda? N0 prisons?

Via The Damn Dirty Rino:

The sovereignty of states in determining the best course for protecting the safety of their law-abiding citizens against the threat of known killers is apparently of little consequence in the eyes of the Supreme Court.

And a couple of reactions via Twitter:

You know what’s even more cruel? When 16-year old gang members like Efrain Perez and Raul Villarreal to brutally rape and murderer two teenage girls, knowing they’ll eventually get a chance to do it again later in life. These two sick animals are among 20 Texas juveniles who were sentenced to life without parole between 2005–2009, before the new Texas law prohibiting it.

I’m guessing these thugs will now get new sentencing hearings in Texas. Which means they’ll be out on our city streets again while they’re still young enough and capable of raping and killing more of our children. And, they’ll have the benefit of 40 years in prison to become stronger and more violent than when they entered the system.

Not for the people who will be killed by these now-even-more-hardended and violent psycopaths when they are eventually released back into society.

Obama’s Very Bad, No Good, Awful Week Just Got Worse — SCOTUS Bitch Slaps SEIU and ALL Unions

 Posted by on 6/21/2012  1 Response »
Jun 212012
 

First, Obama’s AG was found to be in contempt by a House committe for obstructing Congress’ investigation of Operation Fast & Furious. Then Obama had to pull a not-likely-to-hold-up-to-a-court-challenge executive privilege out of his ass to try to cover up the White House and DOJ’s complicit involvement in an illegal operation that resulted in hundreds of dead people, to include Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

And…apparently Obama had a Commerce Secretary (I know…who knew Obama had a Commerce Secretary? WTF was that guy doing for the last three years?) The key word there is had. As in he packed up his cardboard box this morning and called it quits (before Obama could throw him under the bus, I’m sure).

And then in a stinging rebuke of one of Obama’s biggest supporters and campaign contributors — SEIU and all other unions — the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled against SEIU in the Knox v. SEIU case. In a stunning 7-2 (7 to fucking 2, bitches!) vote, SCOTUS ruled that employees can’t be forced to effectively lend money to the union for political activities they disagree with.

Read the entire decision here.

Summary via Fox News (hell yeah, the FOX gang is gloating, you commie bastards; suck on it, donkeys):

The Supreme Court says a union must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations.

The court on Thursday ruled for Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the Service Employees International Union’s Local 1000, who wanted to object and opt out of a $12 million special assessment the union required from its California public sector members. Knox and others said the union did not give them a legally required notice that the increase was coming.

The union, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the annual notice that the union gives was sufficient. The high court disagreed in a 7-2 judgment written by Justice Samuel Alito.

And more via Forbes:

The decision, coming a short time after Gov. Scott Walker survived a union-led recall campaign in Wisconsin, further undermines the power of public-sector unions to compel employees to pay for their operations.The Supreme Court has uneasily upheld laws that require all employees to pay the equivalent of union dues to cover the costs of collective bargaining and other benefits they receive, under the theory it helps maintain “labor peace” by discouraging free-riders. Alito, in this decision, called that policy an “anomaly” given the strong First Amendment right against compelled speech or membership in any organization.

And for the record, noted anti-union activist judges Sotomayor and Kagan boths sided with the majority and against Big Labor. I’m sure union thugs are on their way to their homes and offices to chant, camp, and Occupy. or however it is these thugs throw their temper tantrums these days.

Exactly.

The gloating and mocking on Twitter actually blew up Twitter for a little while this afternoon:

But if Obama thought this week was bad (and it was epically bad), it could have been much, much worse. SCOTUS still hasn’t handed down their decisions on Obamacare and Arizona immigration. TWitter might not ever recover for the gloating and laughter when Obamacare is struck down.

Day 2 — A Very, Very Bad Day at SCOTUS for Obamacare and the Individual Mandate

 Posted by on 3/28/2012  5 Responses »
Mar 282012
 
Obama head in his hand

Shit...maybe I should have actually paid attention to some of those Constitutional law classes I allegedly took instead of smoking dope and running around with radicals

Yesterday was a very, very bad day for Obamacare — specifically to the one aspect of it that most people hate the most: the individual mandate and the tax for non-compliance (though, interestingly — but not surprisingly — Democrats don’t call a tax or a mandate…though it is both).

Don’t take my word for how bad of a day it was for Progs, though. Take it from these Obama cheerleaders, many of who are in his complicit Democrat Media Complex (ty, Andrew Breitbart).

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court.

“This was a train wreck for the Obama administration. This law looks like it’s going to be struck down. I’m telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong.”

On the second day of testimony before the Supreme Court, two justices, Chief John Roberts and Justice Kennedy hammered the government’s advocate, Solicitor General Verrilli, and Verillie basically tripped all over himself trying to find a way to explain how or why the government can’t force Americans to buy anything else they want to if they can force us to buy insurance.

Just two or three days ago, I didn’t believe that the SCOTUS would have the balls to do the right thing — uphold our Constitution. Today? I’m feeling as good as Liberals are feeling bad.

Good News of the Day: SCOTUS OKs Arizona’s Business Immigration Law

 Posted by on 5/26/2011  2 Responses »
May 262011
 
Mexican workers

Papers? We don't need no stink'n papers...what? Wait...we do now? Oh...well then...adios amigos!

Just when you thought there was no more sanity coming out of D.C. and that all three branches of the Federal government had decided to completely disregard Federalism and the 10th amendment, comes this report from the Washington Times:

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that requires all businesses to check to make sure their employees are in the country legally — upholding a state’s effort to enhance federal immigration laws.

Though the decision does not address Arizona’s other law, which granted police broader powers to check illegal immigrants’ status, it suggested a majority of the court is willing to give states a little room to experiment on immigration issues.

In the 5-3 ruling the majority said that while federal law says the national government can’t make electronic checks of employees’ work-eligibility mandatory, the law does not bar states from doing so. And since Arizona’s law deals with business licensing — an area states are allowed to control — it does not impinge on the federal government.

“Arizona’s procedures simply implement the sanctions that Congress expressly allowed the States to pursue through licensing laws,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in his opinion. “Given that Congress specifically preserved such authority for the States, it stands to reason that Congress did not intend to prevent the States from using appropriate tools to exercise that authority.”

Will Obama’s attack dog Attorney General Eric Holder be forced to sue the Supreme Court now?

Not surprisingly, dissenting in the case were the Liberal activists Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the case. Or she would have dissented.

Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer — The Anti-Constitution Justice

 Posted by on 12/13/2010  13 Responses »
Dec 132010
 

Furhter proof that Liberalism is a mental disorder — Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer yesterday argued that the second amendment does not have to be upheld by SCOTUS simply because he believes that the author, James Madison, only included the second amendment to appease states who otherwise would not have ratified the Constitution.

This is what Liberal thinking leads to — a complete disconnect from reality.

What Breyer just argued was that none of our enumerated rights are valid; by Breyer’s logic SCOTUS  and the government can ignore all of our rights because the motive behind including them wasn’t pure. SCOTUS can just throw out our Constitutional rights if they decide the individuals who authored them had the wrong intentions?

Freak’n activist Liberal judges (Dear 8 pounds 6 ounces, new born infant Jesus: do not let any more SCOTUS justices retire or die until a Republican wins the Presidency in 2012 — at which point please let Beyers be the next to go).

The American Pundit’s response to Breyer: So what?

But there’s another point here: Who cares what Madison’s intent was? Who cares why the Second Amendment was added? Who cares what the motivation for its inclusion was? It’s there.

Is Breyer now saying that judges, including the Supreme Court, can ignore rights specifically guaranteed in the Constitution based upon the motivation for their inclusion? That judges can decide explicit rights don’t exist because they weren’t included in good faith? Wow.

To say that’s a dangerous precedent is probably the biggest understatement on this blog. That would mean a judge could decide you no longer have the right to free speech or freedom of the press because, hey, those rights were only included to appease one group needed for ratification.

And this is what passes for intellect on the left? Well…at least he’s not one of those Lefty intellectuals at the Huffing-and-puffing Post who happens to be diddling his daughter while lecturing the rest of us on our lack of morality…

I repeat…Liberalism is a mental disorder.

And I’ve got one more thing to say to Mr. Breyer: Come and take ‘em!

___________

OTHERS:

Ed at Hot Air points out that Federalist 46 makes it pretty clear where Madison stood on gun ownership as a bulwark against tyranny (he was all for it…gun ownership that is, not tyranny).

Verum Serum:

This is the problem with liberal justices. They use history as a cherry orchard, picking and choosing those bits that justify their own prejudices and ignoring the bits which demolish their arguments entirely.

Cold Fury:

It comes down to this once more: liberals have no regard for, nor understanding of, what the Constitution means, what it is, and what it does. In fact, they are opposed to it, except when it suits their sinister purposes not to be.

Redstate:

Of course, I don’t think for a minute that Breyer is going to start taking constitutional history seriously as a universal proposition, or even that he really cares about the history surrounding the Second Amendment. The simple truth here is that there is no tool that a partisan hack will not summon to his side if his party requires it.

And from the RedState comments: “I don’t think Madison foresaw having idiots like Breyer on the Bench…”

Bad News for Obama (which means good news for America): Justice Kennedy Not Ready to Retire

 Posted by on 7/6/2010  2 Responses »
Jul 062010
 

Let’s start Monday Tuesday off with some good news: Conservative Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the 74-year old Reagan-appointee, has no plans to retire before 2012.

And why is this especially good news? Well for several reasons —

  1. Obama has already done significant damage to the Court with the “Wise Latina” confirmation.
  2. And while the Kagan nomination will simply be one uhinged activist Liberal (Kagan) replacing another one (Justice Stephens), she’s young and will have 30-40 years on the court to try to force her Liberal ideology on the rest of us via the bench.
  3. Obama will not be elected to a second term, at which time Kennedy can retire and hopefully a good and consistent Conservative (something Kennedy has not always been) can fill his seat.

However, sadly, I’d bet you dimes to nickles that Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, whose health is a serious issue, will retire before Obama is shown the door, giving him the chance of appointing 3 unhinged Liberal activists to the bench in his single term-Presidency.

Justice Kennedy is the court’s “swing vote” between the four reliably Conservative/Pro-Constitution justices and the four Liberal activist justices. Denying Obama the chance to swing a lot of votes on important issues (you know, like the second amendment) is perhaps the single most important issue facing us today.

CPT. Pete Hegseth (US Army) on Why Elena Kagan Should Not be Confirmed to SCOTUS

 Posted by on 7/3/2010  5 Responses »
Jul 032010
 

Never mind that Elena Kagan is openly and unambiguously hostile to the second amendment, much like the President who nominated her — more devastating is Kagan’s abhorrent hatred of the US Military.

CPT. Pete Hegseth, US Army, who was asked to testify at her nomination hearing, eloquently and passionately sums up all the reason in the world to oppose Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States:

Out of all the people in all of the United States — and this is who Obambi nominates?

Video h/t to Powerline.

SCOTUS Justices Arguing Against the US Constitution

 Posted by on 7/2/2010  6 Responses »
Jul 022010
 

Well…at least the Liberal Justices…

Ed Morrissey: “How did four Supreme Court justices wind up arguing against the Constitution?”

Glenn Reynolds adds: “I’m so jaded, I’m relieved that it was only four. . .”

Maybe we should avoid revisiting the McDonald decision too often, in order to avoid looking a gift horse in the mouth.  The Supreme Court has made an individual right to gun ownership settled law, more than 220 years after the founders mistakenly believed they had settled the issue.  Reason’s Jacob Sullum isn’t satisfied with the conclusion, however, after watching four Supreme Court justices argue against the Constitution and individual rights in general

All the more reason to make sure to win back at least one house in 2010 and the Presidency in 2012 — have to slow down/stop the damage Obama is doing to this country now, and in the future (life time appointments to SCOTUS).

Elena Kagan: Cupcakes for me, but not for thee?

 Posted by on 6/30/2010  4 Responses »
Jun 302010
 

During the confirmation hearings of Supreme (Liar) Court nominee Elena Kaga, she declines to say (video) whether or not the Federal government has the power to dictate what Americans are allowed to eat.

Which made this front page image from Drudge all the more ironic:

Drudge on Kagan

Twinkies for me, but not for thee

Look at the jowls and neck (or lack of) on this one, people. Have you seen those pictures of people who end up with dogs or cats that look just like them? Yeah? Well then why do I get the feeling that she owns a bulldog?

Do you really want to get your nutritional guidance dictates from someone who doesn’t really seem to care too much for their own nutrition? Just because she’s a medical professional in the world of partial-birth abortions doesn’t also make her a nutritionist…

Is there any part of our own lives that we are able to control and have absolute freedom over? Or are we content to let the government make all of our decisions for us (you know, for our own good)?

Elena Kagan Lied; Babies Died

 Posted by on 6/30/2010  2 Responses »
Jun 302010
 

There are about a thousand reasons why Elena Kagan should not be a United States Supreme Court Justice. Most of the them having to do more with her far-Leftwing ideology and overwhelming desire to forward that Leftwing agenda by legislating from the bench than with her complete lack of judicial experience.

But her willingness to lie and deceive in order to forward her Liberal agenda should be the smoking gun that ends these hearings (though it won’t be).

Go read this entire summary of the circumstances by John at Powerline.

Unless there is some other interpretation of these documents that does not occur to me, it appears that Elena Kagan participated in a gigantic scientific deception. On behalf of the Clinton White House, she deliberately subverted what was supposed to be an objective scientific process. The ACOG report was certainly seen in that light by the federal courts.

I don’t care if you do support abortions, or more horrifyingly, partial-birth abortions — how can you sit there and tell me you support a SCOTUS nominee who would intentionally lie to get her agenda passed?

___________

OTHERS:

Jay Tea at Wizbang:

It’s becoming clear why President Obama first tapped Elena Kagan for his Solicitor General, and then Supreme Court nominee: their ideologies and ethics are remarkably congruent. And that alone should be enough to scuttle her nomination.

[snip]

That’s right. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan took a report from medical professionals, deleted a politically inconvenient section, and rewrote it so it said the exact opposite — purely to suit her political agenda. And then she presented it to the Supreme Court as if it was the unaltered expert opinion of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Perjury” doesn’t seem too strong a word here.

 Older Entries