With Saw in Hand

More intelligent words on the Roper v. Simmons coin flip by "The Five" from George Neumayr, executive editor of The American Spectator : "The Supreme Court's judicial activists are cutting off the branch on which they sit. By rejecting the law and putting their personal opinions in its place, the justices invite the people to imitate them and disregard their decrees with the same willfulness they disregard the Constitution. If Anthony Kennedy isn't bound by the framers' words, why are the people bound by his?
The authority of Supreme Court justices derives from the authority of the Constitution: once they deny its authority, they deny their own. "

Kim du Toit in his post Impeachment Time links to an AP article with this blind opinion tucked too nicely among the trees: " The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel. It was the second major defeat at the high court in three years for supporters of the death penalty." As Karl Haas so often said, "Did you hear that? Let's play it again." "...major defeat at the high court in three years for supporters of the death penalty". And a great victory for small, inexpensive paper shredders, coming soon to every house with which we can shred for ourselves these little fortune-cookie sayings: "It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body". Did you hear that? Let's play it again.
"The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body". In addition to The Federalist Papers, the writer of those words is memorialized on the Ten. Perhaps Justice Kennedy only uses monopoly money, its value equivalent to the regard he carries for the opinions of the Founders.
A Google search for the phrase "evolving standards of decency" results in" about 13,000 English pages for "evolving standards of decency,". In 0.20 seconds. An evolving drug resistant tuberculosis bacterium retains no decency, nor does the Roper decision retain what it ought, the "sense of the law". When this country assumed " among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...", Mr. Jefferson also said "...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation". Justice Kennedy's respect to the opinions of mankind, his nod to "evolving standards of decency" is most indecent, shows no respect to the "opinions" so carefully codified in the Constitution, and, that he should presume upon that document, deserves from us only scorn.