Monday, March 07, 2005

More International Tests?
I thought we resolved that one with John Kerry's defeat last November—apparently not.

I haven't posted about Roper v. Simmons much because I think Justice Scalia (all opinions, concurrences, and dissents can be accessed here) said more than enough to cover my views. Basically, I'm undecided about the death penalty for minors, but I do know I want it to be determined legislatively, instead of by a body of five judges who have determined themselves as my moral compass. John Hinderaker has more to add in the Weekly Standard, however, and I think it's important to read what he says, including:

In reality, of course, the 'international opinion' standard is appealing to some justices precisely because it gives them unfettered discretion to pick and choose the 'opinions' that should influence American law. At the end of the day, the opinions the justices are really deferring to are their own. The new standard of 'international opinion' is just one more vehicle that allows Supreme Court justices to make up the law as they go along.
Read the whole thing—it's clear, concise, and spot-on.

No comments: