Cited page

Citations are available only to our active members. Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

X X

Cited page

Display options
Reset

Supreme Arrogance: In One of Its Rulings, the Supreme Court Has Once Again Stepped beyond Its Legal Bounds, Ending Capital Punishment for People under 18 Years Old. Adding Insult to Injury, the Court Explicitly Cited Foreign Sources in the Main Text of Its Decision

By: Eddlem, Thomas R. | The New American, April 4, 2005 | Article details

Look up
Saved work (0)

matching results for page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?
While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.

Supreme Arrogance: In One of Its Rulings, the Supreme Court Has Once Again Stepped beyond Its Legal Bounds, Ending Capital Punishment for People under 18 Years Old. Adding Insult to Injury, the Court Explicitly Cited Foreign Sources in the Main Text of Its Decision


Eddlem, Thomas R., The New American


Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia is known for using some acerbic terms in his opinions, but his dissent in the 5-4 decision Roper v. Simmons, which purported to declare that the death penalty for anyone under 18 years of age is "unconstitutional," took the cake. In the course of saying that the majority opinion had "no foundation in law or reason," Scalia used terms such as "mockery," "usurpation," "diktat," and "sophistry." For the usually reserved language in court decisions, this was the Supreme Court equivalent of Scalia throwing his chair at the other justices.

What caused such a furor? At the bottom of the majority decision in Roper v. Simmons was the claim that the execution of anyone who had not reached his 18th birthday constituted "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as "incorporated" on the states by the 14th Amendment). Though the court had explicitly ruled in the 1989 case Stanford v. Kentucky that the execution of 16- and 17-year-olds was not "cruel and unusual punishment," the five majority justices arrived at the opposite conclusion on the basis of examining …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Select text to:

Select text to:

  • Highlight
  • Cite a passage
  • Look up a word
Learn more Close
Loading One moment ...
Highlight
Select color
Change color
Delete highlight
Cite this passage
Cite this highlight
View citation

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?