Impeach Kennedy for Being Supremacist Judge?Or Just Kill Him

Quote:

Federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. §115 (a)(1)(B). That law states:

"Whoever threatens to assault…. or murder, a United States judge… with intent to retaliate against such… judge…. on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished [by up to six years in prison]"

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/~lautenberg/press/2003/01/2005401638.html

Any idea where common law came from, Baldimo?

Common law legal systems

The common law constitutes the basis of the legal systems of: England and Wales, the Republic of Ireland, the United States (except Louisiana), Canada (except Quebec private law), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and many other generally English-speaking countries or Commonwealth countries. Basically, every country which has been colonised at some time by Britain uses common law except those British colonies that were taken over from other Empires, such as Quebec (following French law to some extent) and South Africa (following Roman Dutch law to some extent) where the prior civil law system was retained to respect the civil rights of the local colonists. India's system of common law is also a mixture of English law and the local Hindu law.

The main alternative to the common law system is the civil law system, which is used in Continental Europe, and most of the rest of the world. The former Soviet Bloc and other Socialist countries used a Socialist law system.

The opposition between civil law and common law legal systems has become increasingly blurred, with the importance of jurisprudence (almost like case law but in name) in civil law countries, and the growing importance of statute law and codes in common law countries (for instance, in matters of criminal law).

Quote:

Common law legal systems

The common law constitutes the basis of the legal systems of: England and Wales, the Republic of Ireland, the United States (except Louisiana), Canada (except Quebec private law), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and many other generally English-speaking countries or Commonwealth countries. Basically, every country which has been colonised at some time by Britain uses common law except those British colonies that were taken over from other Empires, such as Quebec (following French law to some extent) and South Africa (following Roman Dutch law to some extent) where the prior civil law system was retained to respect the civil rights of the local colonists. India's system of common law is also a mixture of English law and the local Hindu law.

The main alternative to the common law system is the civil law system, which is used in Continental Europe, and most of the rest of the world. The former Soviet Bloc and other Socialist countries used a Socialist law system.

The opposition between civil law and common law legal systems has become increasingly blurred, with the importance of jurisprudence (almost like case law but in name) in civil law countries, and the growing importance of statute law and codes in common law countries (for instance, in matters of criminal law).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law


Don't they teach this sort of thing in high school anymore?

Sadly, I share your fear, acquiunk and edgar. There seems to be a movement afoot in the legislative branch to severly curtail the much-vaunted "independence" of the judiciary. Those justices and judges just don't toe the line like they're supposed to do. Let's put a scare into them by impeaching a few. Of course, the legislature itself has given up most of its prerogatives and surrendered them to the executive. We have had half a dozen wars in the last 50 years -- Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Gulf War I, now Gulf War II-- yet no war has been declared by Congress since Dec. 8, 1941. It's all done by Executive Order now, in spite of what the Constitution says. So, there's the legislative branch safely out of the way. Now we need to deal with the judicial branch to make sure those Supremes stay in line, damnit.

I truly believe we are witnessing the end of the Republic, as it was intended by the founders, and the begining of the Empire, with autocratic rule from Washington, backed by a stong professional army (I miss the draft) and a legislature that routinely rubber-stamps edicts from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Might as well do away with the presidential elections, too. Since 2000, they've been pretty meaningless anyway.

You're not answering my question. Since when does the Supreme Court which rules on the Constitutional value of court cases, use rulings from outside the US? The regular courts rule on common law and then the Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of said ruling.

Baldimo wrote:

You're not answering my question. Since when does the Supreme Court which rules on the Constitutional value of court cases, use rulings from outside the US? The regular courts rule on common law and then the Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of said ruling.

That's an interesting question. I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court didn't do that because every other common law jurisdiction's supreme court will do so. In my own jurisdiction I've read cases where my state's Supreme Court and indeed the High Court of Australia frequently adopt the reasonings in cases decided in other common law countries, including State courts of the US and the US Supereme Court itself.

It's interesting but many years ago when a High Court of Australia Justice (the late Justice Lionel Murphy) informed himself using a decision from the US Supreme Court, he was immediately denounced as an activist judge.

Common law jurisprudence isn't exclusive to any country and the wisest of the wise look outside their own boundaries to help reach just decisions.

As to the specifics of if the US Supreme Court has ever referred to a case from outside the US, don't know but will find out.

Merry Andrew wrote:

Sadly, I share your fear, acquiunk and edgar. There seems to be a movement afoot in the legislative branch to severly curtail the much-vaunted "independence" of the judiciary. Those justices and judges just don't toe the line like they're supposed to do. Let's put a scare into them by impeaching a few. Of course, the legislature itself has given up most of its prerogatives and surrendered them to the executive. We have had half a dozen wars in the last 50 years -- Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Gulf War I, now Gulf War II-- yet no war has been declared by Congress since Dec. 8, 1941. It's all done by Executive Order now, in spite of what the Constitution says. So, there's the legislative branch safely out of the way. Now we need to deal with the judicial branch to make sure those Supremes stay in line, damnit.

I truly believe we are witnessing the end of the Republic, as it was intended by the founders, and the begining of the Empire, with autocratic rule from Washington, backed by a stong professional army (I miss the draft) and a legislature that routinely rubber-stamps edicts from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Might as well do away with the presidential elections, too. Since 2000, they've been pretty meaningless anyway.

Grenada was not a war,and the President used the authority of the war powers act to invade Grenada.
The WPA states that the President has 60 days to notify Congress.
Read the WPA for yourself...
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

The Constitutional issue was whether or not it was cruel or unusual punishment.

"Cruel and unusual" is a societal standard.

I'm still trying to decide if I agree with their using international standards to determine the US standard of cruel and unusual punishment, but the Supreme Court clearly has the authority to do so.

Citing the Court's 2002 ruling that outlawed the execution of mentally retarded murderers, Justice Kennedy first wrote that death penalty law and the "cruel and unusual punishments" clause of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution require the Justices to evaluate "society's evolving standards of decency" in order to ensure that punishments are not excessive. The court must look for a national consensus on those standards of decency and then "determine, in the exercise of our own independent judgment, whether the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for juveniles."

The majority first found that there was a "telling" national consensus against the execution of juvenile murderers; a trend "similar, and in some respects parallel" to the consensus the Court found in 2002 to outlaw the execution of mentally retarded murderers.

Since 1989, when the Court last looked at juveniles and the death penalty, five states have specifically precluded capital punishment for juvenile offenders. No states have added juveniles within the class of capital defendants eligible for the death penalty. Moreover, Justice Kennedy found, even those states that technically permit the practice have shied away from executing murderers who were 16 or 17 when they killed.

The majority ruling next offered a rationale for treating 16- and 17-year-old offenders differently from adults. Citing studies and what "any parent knows," Justice Kennedy noted that juveniles are comparatively immature and irresponsible compared with adults and thus prone to "reckless behavior" and "negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure."

Moreover, relying on another study, Kennedy wrote that "the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult." These factual underpinnings led the majority to conclude that "from a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed."

Furthermore, Kennedy continued, "whether viewed as an attempt to express the community's moral outrage or as an attempt to right the balance for the wrong to the victim, the case for retribution is not as strong with a minor as with an adult. Retribution is not proportional if the law's most severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished, to a substantial degree, by reason of youth and immaturity." Especially for a young person, he added, a life sentence without the possibility of parole "is itself a severe sanction."

Finally, and perhaps most controversially for the legal isolationists among us, the majority acknowledged the impact that foreign law has on the debate. "The United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty," Justice Kennedy wrote. "This reality does not become controlling...but the Court has referred to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of" the Eighth Amendment." In this case, he added, "the opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our conclusions."

Since 1989, when the Court last looked at juveniles and the death penalty, five states have specifically precluded capital punishment for juvenile offenders. No states have added juveniles within the class of capital defendants eligible for the death penalty. Moreover, Justice Kennedy found, even those states that technically permit the practice have shied away from executing murderers who were 16 or 17 when they killed.