Justice Kennedy, as GOP scourge?

Posted: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:21 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Republicans

From MSNBC.com's Tom Curry
“This session of the Supreme Court has been a winner for child rapists and terrorists.”

That is what John McCain’s best buddy in the Senate, Sen. Lindsey Graham, said in a statement today about the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 ruling in the Louisiana death penalty case. (The two Bush appointees on the court, Roberts and Alito, were in the minority.)

The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, struck down the Louisiana law that permitted the death penalty for those convicted of raping a child.

The word “terrorists” in Graham’s statement was a reference to the high court’s June 12 Boumediene decision which struck down a central part of the 2007 Military Commission Act and gave prisoners at Guantanamo the right to habeas corpus.

That decision, too, was written by Justice Kennedy.

In one sense, it is all due to the blocking of the Bork nomination in 1987 which led to the nomination of Anthony Kennedy, who on days like today is the most powerful man in Washington.

In case anyone might have missed the point Graham added in his statement: “One of the major issues facing our nation is the future makeup of the Supreme Court.”

As I wrote back in 2005, there is “a lesson in this for presidents and those who help them select Supreme Court nominees: when your first candidate fails, and your second surprises you with an awkward episode from his past, you can end up with someone whose decisions you’ll live to regret for 20 years and more. One of the most conservative presidents in American history wound up placing on the high court a judge who turned out to be in some cases -- from the conservative perspective -- alarmingly liberal.”

EMAIL THIS

Comments

First, I think Graham is a phony and an idiot. I disagree with both him and Jindal about the supreme court decision. Castration is appropriate, but the death penalty - not that it is too harsh; but would it prevent a rapist from becoming a murderer. Yes, what happened is horrendous; but did the criminal know the death penalty was the result, and in so knowing, did it prevent him from killing her? I don't pretend to have the answers, mostly I am against the death penalty. This one is just too gruesome to be able to separate emotion from ideology. As a mother, I want any adult who harms or rapes a child to pay steep penalties. As a society of laws, does killing someone teach someone that raping or killing is wrong? I am all over the castration angle.

This is why we need to keep these wedge issues out of this election. There are thousands of view points and most of them are right on some level. We need to focus on the things that unite us.

Sorry for the confusing babble, but I've had this one on my mind all day. Random stream of consciousness.

Clara Kansas City, MO (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:33 PM)

PS. Of course he's liberal, his last name's Kennedy -for Pete's sake.

Really meant to humor. I personally think he's done an excellent job. Of course, I'm a liberal!

Clara Kansas City, MO (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:35 PM)

FR - Look at CNN's story about Obama disagreeing with this ruling on their Political Ticker and update this thread!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/25/obama-splits-with-supreme-court-on-rape-executions/

Interesting stuff.

P, CA (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:43 PM)

Just goes to show that the Constitution is alive and well in spite of this administrations' attempts to circumvent it.

Long live those who understand the meaning of cruel and unusual punishment and those willing to protect the writ of habeus corpus.

All we need now is someone willing to restore the 4th amendment and fight FISA immunity.

Ira, Freehold, NJ (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:44 PM)

Stands to reason. Liberals are for terrorists. Why wouldn't they also be for child rapists?

Enron Matthews, Justice MN (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:56 PM)

From what I've read and seen on TV about this decision, the Supreme Court based their finding on two things: 1) the fact that a small child can be (but not necessarily IS) a less-than-credible witness, and 2) DNA evidence has exonerated many people in recent years, although some of them were executed before their innocence was brought to light. In view of this (and also because I am NOT a proponent of the death penalty), I think the Court made an excellent decision today. So justice prevails, despite the current administration!

Janet, Tampa, FL (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:00 PM)

So its cruel and unusual punishment to put a man to death by leathel injection(even though the courts ruled not too long ago leathel injection is NOT cruel and unusual)but the child who has to live with being raped isnt? weres the justice? you liberals are such hyprocrites. I used to consider my self liberal until the meaning of a liberal went WAY to the left. Its pathetic that in todays day and age a man can rape a child and get only a life sentence(if that) and the people who support it dare to say they believe in liberty. Liberty for criminals and terrorists are more importent to liberals these days then for the natural born law abiding citizens in the US. Shame on you.

Ray (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:01 PM)

Stands to reason. Liberals are for terrorists. Why wouldn't they also be for child rapists?
Enron Matthews, Justice MN (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:56 PM)
.................................................

When did standing up for the rule of law make you a liberal or terrorist. Standing up to those who would infringe on your rights makes you a PATRIOT.

When they come for you, don't complain.

Ira, Freehold, NJ (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:04 PM)

Even if you are a liberal, how can you possibly support these decisions that make things easier for terrorists and child rapists? Come on.

James, San Diego, CA (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:08 PM)

With Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia, the court has gone so far to the right that Kennedy, a very consevative justice has become a centrist. Our civil liberties are in grave danger.

Bobby K, Chicago, IL (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:18 PM)

Many of the people opposed to this ruling are also in support of minors - children - being put to death for crimes committed in their immature youth. Hey - why not just put to death anyone who commits any crime? Surely it would weed out the "criminal" element from society in a few short generations.
Have any of you opponents of the Supreme Court's ruling on this read Justice Kennedy's Opinion? Have you considered that a child raped by a father would be sentencing that father to death in reporting the rape? Have you thought about the consequences of that dual emotional trauma for the child? Would it open the door as Justice Kennedy worries to more sentences of the death penalty for other rape convictions? There are surely many vile rapes committed on teenagers, adult and even elderly women. Why not put them to death too? Where should this pre-meditated murder by the government end?
Are none of you concerned, as Justice Kennedy is, that children are sometimes poor witnesses, unable to accurately relate the details of abusive and emotionally traumatic incidents in their innocent lives?
Liberals are for terrorists? Sheesh! I'm so put in my place! Conservatives have done such an outstanding job of getting the terrorists in line, bringing bin Laden to justice, and ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban and the world of Al Qaeda!
Sure hope a few thinkers prevail in this election! Have you noticed how Obama thinks before he speaks - intelligently?

Lindy (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:24 PM)

Just go ahead a say that Ronald Reagan appointed Justice Kennedy!

Obama O8 (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:34 PM)

Sen. Lindsey Graham is proposing to be the lead in stripping Human Rights away from Americans and people in general, mainly to fight for the rights of disloyal Multi-National Corporations.

Eye for an Eye Lindsey...not my death for speaking ill of corporate slavery, or believe that I should be put to death for "finding"(v. looting) food during a national crisis!
An Eye for an Eye.

Yeah Child Rape, it's bad, and yeah it's damaging. No child should be raped. None. But a stifling society (like the one the religious right wishes to create) creates no outlets for the dark impulses of man and intends to pretend that dark impulses of man do not exist - then once it forces you to recognize the act, you wish to obliterate the person. It's funny how little the religious right cares so little about killing God's Creation! Simply, Legalize the sex trade and regulate it to protect those women that are willing to role play a child's role for a fee to minimize these freaks from preying on real children!

Maybe we should be like China and start executing Senators for bad laws that negatively affect the people at large?

You Go Lindsey! Genius! (Jackass)

Realist, USA (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:37 PM)

"That is what John McCain’s best buddy in the Senate, Sen. Lindsey Graham . . ."

I may have missed it, but haven't heard anyone suggest that Lindsey Graham might be McCain's choice for VP. He seems to be in the spotlight frequently - and everywhere in appearances with McCain.

Graham certainly had heavy duty support in his candidacy for the Senate from powerful Republican powers that be, and he grins like a cheshire cat when asked who he thinks might be McCain's choice for VP.

Just a thought . . .

Lindy (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:42 PM)

Enron: "Stands to reason. Liberals are for terrorists. Why wouldn't they also be for child rapists?"

Liberals are "for" RIGHTS, not "for" terrorists, child molesters, murderers, et al. Same logic that explains how I can be FOR a woman's right to choose, yet not "for" abortion as a practice.
{I realize this is a difficult concept to grasp for those in the black/white world of conservatism, but work on it, 'k? The world comes in colors; open your eyes.} {not that I'm surprised by such an opinion by someone named for one of the ugliest financial disasters in history... perpetrated by GOP stalwarts, not surprisingly}
The death penalty is an abomination in a civilized society. It's not a deterrent; it's not fairly applied across all defendants; it HAS been applied to innocent persons (evidenced by the recent pardons based on newer DNA procedures). It is NOTHING MORE than vengeance - a base instinct which we should aspire to rise above {in the process of lifting our knuckles off the ground}.
Here's a thought: if a prosecutor asks for the death penalty for a defendant, succeeds, sees the sentence carried out and later the defendant is found NOT guilty, how 'bout we put the prosecutor to death? After all, he was the cause of the unnecessary taking of a life; so, that'd be fair, right?
If that was signed into law, the practice would be abolished 15 minutes afterwards.

Mr. French (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:54 PM)

Janet, Tampa, FL (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:00 PM)

Most of those recently who were executed before the DNA evidence came in were those who committed the crime decades ago, before DNA evidence was routinely collected, so it wasn't available. A someone for the death penalty, I wholeheartedly agree that with DNA used all the time now, we should automatically look back on such evidence. Texas instituted a policy when Rick Perry became governor, so that a death penalty is automatically appealed and DNA used if it wasn't in the original trial. IMO, anyone for the penalty should be for looking at DNA, because you have to be as sure as possible when undertaking such a serious measure.

Keith, Levelland, Texas (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:59 PM)

This is a case that republicans will abuse. Again, the MSM will sound bite the case instead of educating the public.

If we can afford it, these people should be put away for life, unless there is DNA or an adult witness.

The court knows there are still thousands of innocent people who are in jail & want to protect those who might be that unlucky.

A Charles, LA, CA (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:02 PM)

This is getting out of hand. "Terrorists"? Try "detainees" - some of them have even been cases of mistaken identity. Imagine being in jail for years with no idea WHY because you were thought to have been someone else. POINT BEING: We don't KNOW if they're terrorists until we TRY them in COURT for their CRIMES (or lack thereof). This is ALL the Supreme Court gave them, and it's a basic human right that dates back to the DARK AGES.

PS, WI (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:15 PM)

Liberals are the saviors of terrorists and child rapests. When it comes to guns , they like to rewrite the constitution and interpret every thing else to protect perpetrators. Thats why they favor gun control, so even the most independent and selfsuficient must rely on big government to save them.

Larry Muskegon Mi (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:19 PM)

Hey Ira, Im really concerned that they will come for me. But then again Im not a criminal.

Larry Muskegon Mi (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:20 PM)

I agree with Senator Obama. There are some crimes that are worse than death. If a state wants to impose death for child rape, and that state's criminal justice procedures are up to our nation's highest standards, I don't see how that sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

Publius II (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:22 PM)

Kennedy embarrassed himself badly this term. He did not base his decisions on the law but rather on his personal policy preferences. We have never given enemy combatants access to our courts in over 200 years of warfare because there is nothing in the constitution requiring it. From a practical standpoint there are very good reasons for that being the case. We are obviously not going to be able to comply with the ruling during a future conflict of any size thus there will be a workaround or the decision will have to be ignored or overturned. Indeed, the justices themselves couldn't think of a way to make it work so they left that to the lower courts and left the military guessing as to what the standards will be during a time of war. They also overstepped their bounds in that the congress had removed this issue from their jurisdiction as allowed by the constitution. You basically have a rogue judiciary trying to trump the powers of the other two branches of government in this case and I doubt future presidents will feel bound by the decision.

Kennedy didn't even pretend to couch his death penalty decision in the law. He more or less bluntly stated that his policy preference would be the law of the land. I would critique his legal reasoning but there was none. As a libertarian I can honestly say that his disdain for the law is exceeded only by his ignorance of it. The type of people who applaud his policies pronouncements are the same people who applaud the policies of unelected dictators as long as those policies are ones they agree with. I might agree that only allowing the death penalty for capital crimes is a good policy but it certainly has no basis in law.

Tim, Knoxville TN (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:27 PM)

Justice is not a zero-sum game. Just because terror SUSPECTS have more than ZERO rights doesn't mean that they "win," and spending your life in prison instead of having a needle isn't "winning" either. Life isn't a sporting event or a video game, so not every situation has a winner and a loser. Child rapists and terrorists are still going to lose, and a justice system governed by the rule of law and the Constitution will see to that, not one governed by fear, lies, secrecy, and utter disdain for everything this country was founded on.

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry

doofman, Chicago IL (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:34 PM)

Our "famous 5" Supreme Court justices need to be removed before they do any more harm to our Country. They are liberal jurists and doing everything they can to ruin America as they know their time is short and want their liberal views to become the law of the land. I wonder if they even took into consideration the effects of the "cruel and unusual punishment" the rapist inflicted upon this young 8 year old girl. Oh that's right...she doesn't count....just their opinions. God help us!

Julie Hamil, kansas city mo (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:46 PM)

Too all here praising this God-forsaken decision; You'll get no sympathy from me if any of your children are ever beaten, raped, and sodomized...

Dave (Sent Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:48 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1168594