Yes, you heard that right. If some fiend rapes a child, he may not receive capital punishment anywhere in the United States.
Now, I agree with the Pope that capital punishment, in this day and age, is largely unnecessary. However, given the hideous facts of some of these child rape cases, I'd be hard pressed to argue that the death penalty wasn't warranted. I also understand that my opinion on this matter may not reflect that of the majority of others in this country and that folks in other states have an absolute right to decide how to govern themselves with regard to issues like this.
But in another case of usurpation of the right to self-government, the five unelected judges of the Supreme Court have taken it upon themselves to decide for the entire nation when the death penalty may or may not be applied.
The reasons for this ruling as provided by the five liberal dictators on the court are completely specious and yet another example of unelected judges not only making law from the bench, but pontificating on morality as well. As Justice Alito wrote in dissent:
The Court provides two reasons for this sweeping conclusion:Did you get that? The Supreme Court (or at least the five liberal tyrants on the Supreme Court) have decided that they are the arbiters of our 'evolving standards of decency.' Don't forget, it was the Supreme Court that ruled that 'evolving standards of decency' now included God-given rights to abort our children, buy, sell, and produce pornography, and engage in sodomy.
First, the Court claims to have identified “a national consensus” that the death penalty is never acceptable for the rape of a child;
Second, the Court concludes, based on its “independent judgment,” that imposing the death penalty for child rape is inconsistent with ‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’”
Am I the only one who feels just a bit uncomfortable with individuals like Justices Stevens, Bryer, Ginsberg, Souter, and Kennedy defining our national morality?