« A Few Uncomfortable Facts | Main | John Adams July 3, 1776 »
July 02, 2008
Supreme Error
Posted by Tina
One of the Supreme Court rulings handed down last month apparently contains an error. The case in question is the death penalty child rape case:
“Supreme Court’s Embarrassing Error” – Clarice Feldman, American Thinker
A blogger, Caaflog, caught Justice Kennedy having made the biggest error in modern Supreme Court history that I can recall. In the death penalty child rape case, when he said that the death penalty for this crime was "against evolving standards" he overlooked, what a blogger found, that in 2006 Congress itself had made rape of a child a crime subject to the death penalty under the military code. ** No clerk or justice caught this error which is significant and completely undermines the justification for Kennedy's swing vote in this case.Indeed, the entire case it seems to me is of dubious precedential value having been based on a clear factual error of great significance. ** How can something be against "evolving standards" when Congress elected by the people of the land just endorsed it?
Good question. The link takes you to an updated version of the post that includes the rule that applies for consideration of a rehearing.
Posted by Post Scripts at July 2, 2008 10:12 PM
Comments
It's simply explained. The Congress's action re the military code was no part of any "evolving standard". Just the opposite. This entire administration has been a moral and political aberration, and as soon has who's-he-what's-its is removed, we are going to undo everything done therein.
Posted by: Libby at July 7, 2008 03:53 PM
Sieg Heil! (I have no idea if I spelled it right but you get my drift)
Arrogance...thy name is progressive!
arrogance: a genuine or assumed feeling of superiority that shows itself in an overbearing manner or attitude or in excessive claims of position, dignity, or power or that unduly exalts one's own worth or importance
Whether you agree or not Libby the Congress passed a law. When they do that it becomes the law of the land and establishes the new "standard"...hence Kennedy's rather ridiculous, IMHO, use of the term "evolving standards". He erred making this the significant point:
"the entire case...is of dubious precedential value having been based on a clear factual error of great significance."
Based on a "factual error"...get it?
Of course not...it's all about regaining CONTROL.
Posted by: Tina at July 7, 2008 09:26 PM
Your logic escapes me.
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 B1 A7 A8 A9
Is it the A's or the B's that represent the evolving standard? If, for several centuries, successive legislation has sited death as a legal requirement for capital punishment, and suddenly you have a regulation that says not, wouldn't that be unprecedented and even aberrant. Why yes, I think it would.
Posted by: Libby at July 9, 2008 02:41 PM
I'm not a lawyer so I may need help here but here goes:
"Precedent" is established in "cases" that have come before the court as far as I know. "Laws: passed by the Congress and signed by the President are not the same thing.
Websters: precident - a judicial decision, a form of proceeding, or course of action that serves as a rule for future determinations in similar or analogous cases : an authority to be followed in courts of justice
And by the way...I'm not surprised that my logic escapes you...not at all.
Posted by: Tina at July 9, 2008 08:07 PM