.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Our Moral Judges

In my inaugural post to this blog, I figured I would start in such a fashion that everyone will know where I stand along the political front: pure and total fascism (J/K).

Today, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Simmons case that an execution of a minor between the ages of 16 and 17 is cruel and unusual punishment. Now, the bleeding-heart liberals will cry victory (and would say Hallelujah if they believed in God), while I will be wallowing away my misery with a frosty bottle of hemlock tonight. What am I miserable about? The consistent stance that this court has chosen with respect to state’s rights.

I am not an advocate of the death penalty. In fact, I find the entire idea morally reprehensible. However, I do believe that the states should be allowed to make their own laws. The liberals would have you believe that the federal government taking unto itself more and more power is for the common good. Evidently, they think it’s a good idea for you and me to no longer have a say in the democratic process. Today, Justices Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, Stevens, and Kennedy let the world know that they are now the sole judges of morality in the United States. My BOYS Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist and my hunny bunny Sandra Day made their displeasure known in a scathing dissent. They understand what the liberals evidently do not: the more consolidated the democratic process, the less it can do. By limiting the states in the laws they can enact and enforce, the Supreme Court takes the power out of the hands of the state officers and the voting public that put them in office. You might ask, but doesn’t that same voting public elect our national representatives? Yes, but each state doesn’t have the same representation as the Nebraskans on this blog can clearly attest to. California and New York may not find the disappearance of states’ rights that disturbing of an occurrence, but those of you that live in Iowa, Alabama, Oklahoma, Montana, etc. should understand that less power reserved to the states means less power reserved to you.

For those of you who don’t know the Simmons case, the State of Missourri found Simmons guilty of a murder he committed when he was 17. He broke into an elderly lady’s home while she was sleeping, bound and gagged her, dragged her across railroad tracks near her home, and dropped her off a railroad trestle. I’m not saying that Simmons should have been sentenced to death, but if he would have been an 18 year old, he would have ridden Old Sparky to that burning ring of fire by now and none of us would have ever heard about it (unless you live in Missourri).

I just think it should be up to the states to make those kind of decisions because each state has its own outlook and its own opinion and who are you to tell them that their opinion is wrong.

At least I can take solace in the fact that my party owns the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and most of these Justices are old enough to remember the connecting of the trans-continental railroad.

UPDATE: Big Boi, coming strong! You may be the rookie contributor, but that was a veteran post, my friend! GA HILL

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home
College Term Papers And Research Papers
Term Papers

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?