# SCOTUS Finds Death Penalty for Those Under 18 Unconstitutional **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 1, 2005, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484 "2005-03-01T20:43:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/81 "2005-03-04T06:01:32Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Which cases are those and how do you ensure that only those “some cases” are the ones where the SC takes other countries’ courts’ opinion into account? It sounds like you are saying “it’s OK as long as I agree with it.” But there is nothing to make sure that you will always agree with it. I don’t think the courts _should_ be limited when it comes to considering the opinions of other courts when making decisions. Again, we are sovreign-- we do not have to “obey” the rulings of other nations’ courts, but just like when a person plans to make a major decision, it’s good to ask the opinions of those around you. I feel compelled to note that I can put politics aside when looking at issues such as these-- my opinion is not always what’s right. It’s just an opinion-- dust in the proverbial wind. I have not been, nor pray God will ever be, a person who says that something is right simply because my personal ethical code agrees with it-- sometimes what’s morally right is legally wrong and vice versa. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > But the issue isn’t whether we a 24 year old, an 18 year old, or even a 16 year old has a fully formed prefrontal cortex. It’s whether a 24/18/16 year old’s prefrontal cortex is mature enough to be able to tell that murder is wrong. And I don’t think you have to have a fully formed prefrontal cortex to be able to tell that it’s wrong to kill people without adequate justification. And if someone’s brain is so underdeveloped that they don’t know that murder is wrong, then under our current system, that individual will not be found guilty of murder by reason of insanity, and won’t be subject to the death penalty. There is a distinct difference between having a general idea that something is wrong and having a true, deep understanding of the consequences of one’s actions. Look, I’m not saying to smack their hands and send them to bed without any dinner. What I am trying to say is that perhaps there should be a bit of consideration that some of these people may have had the requisite knowledge that an act was wrong, but was _physically incapable of truly and fully comprehending the consequences._ > [@](#): > > The question isn’t whether the foreign nations are correct. I’d argue that in this case, they were. But what do we do when the foreign nations are not correct? Nothing. Say, “Thanks for your advice. We always value your opinions,” and politely disregard it. > [@](#): > > And if the foreign nations are correct, then the best redress was through the legislature and executive. In other words, pass laws restricting the execution of juvenile defendants, just like they did in (I believe) 31 states already. Yes, but laws dealing with constitutional issues seem to always get challenged-- and the challenges end up going up the ladder to the Supreme Court anyway. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/82 "2005-03-04T06:23:59Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > I don’t think the courts _should_ be limited when it comes to considering the opinions of other courts when making decisions. Again, we are sovreign-- we do not have to “obey” the rulings of other nations’ courts, but just like when a person plans to make a major decision, it’s good to ask the opinions of those around you. But when the SC bases it’s opinion, even if just in part, on the actions of foreign courts, we DO have to obey that decision. > [@](#): > > I feel compelled to note that I can put politics aside when looking at issues such as these-- my opinion is not always what’s right. It’s just an opinion-- dust in the proverbial wind. I have not been, nor pray God will ever be, a person who says that something is right simply because my personal ethical code agrees with it-- sometimes what’s morally right is legally wrong and vice versa. I’m the same way, but your original post said that the SC should take foreign courts’ decisions into account in “some” cases. I just wanted to understand when it was OK and when it wasn’t OK. But now you seem to be saying that it’s OK in ALL cases. That’s a different argument. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/83 "2005-03-04T16:50:05Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But when the SC bases it’s opinion, even if just in part, on the actions of foreign courts, we DO have to obey that decision. Ya know what? When the SC of the US issues a decision, following whatever reasoning it finds persuasive, it at that moment becomes a good old \*US domestic \* decision. > [@](#): > > I just wanted to understand when it was OK and when it wasn’t OK. Surely it isn’t hard to accept that non-US’ers are not only human but in many cases represent well-developed, thoughtful, even moral cultures, and that their views just might be worth listening to. Well, maybe that \*is \* hard for some. **AQA** , what **laigle** said. You call it “hyperbole”, huh? Lame. As lame as saying you were joking. :rolleyes: Oh, since your faith in the accuracy of the US judicial system in every and all capital cases is so complete that you doubt any innocent man has ever been executed, start your fight against ignorance [here](http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm). ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/84 "2005-03-04T20:23:24Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Surely it isn’t hard to accept that non-US’ers are not only human but in many cases represent well-developed, thoughtful, even moral cultures, and that their views just might be worth listening to. Well, maybe that \*is \* hard for some. Putting words in someone’s mouth is a distasteful debating tactic. What **John Mace** said, and what I stated as well, was that there is a place to consider world opinion. An appropriate place would be treaty negotiations by the executive branch. Another would be the drafting of legislation and treaty ratification by the legislature. Such practices explicitly turn international opinion into American law. Now, foreign laws that have not been treated in this fashion are not binding on Americans. Nor are the treaties or portions of treaties we are not a signatory to or have not yet ratified. Since they aren’t part of a body of law Americans are bound to, I think it improper and dangerous that they be considered when American law is discussed. The Supreme Court isn’t all powerful, you know. There are, quite properly, limits on its actions. This should be another of these. If you believe otherwise, I’d love to hear some justification for it other than saying that the opinions must be correct since the Court made them. After all, it was pointed out above that the Court has been in error in the past. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/85 "2005-03-04T20:39:21Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Ya know what? When the SC of the US issues a decision, following whatever reasoning it finds persuasive, it at that moment becomes a good old \*US domestic \* decision. It does. And when Republicans rant against “activist judges” and that resonates with people, and they vote in Bush partly to prevent more “activist judges” from ascending to the SC, that’s a domestic decsion, too. Actions have consequences. > [@](#): > > Surely it isn’t hard to accept that non-US’ers are not only human but in many cases represent well-developed, thoughtful, even moral cultures, and that their views just might be worth listening to. Well, maybe that \*is \* hard for some. It’s not hard for me. I listen to foreign opions all the time. I’ve even changed my mine due to this. I think the president and legislator should as well. But a judge’s job is to interpret US law and US law alone. Unless, of course, their intention is to usurp the authority of the executive or the legislature, or both. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/86 "2005-03-04T20:56:04Z")
And that is precisely what they did - there being no more specific definition of “cruel and unusual” in US-only law available to guide an interpretation. Note in passing that they’d have come to the same conclusion without invoking any foreign treaties at all. This “judicial activism” you complain is in play here has been gone over on this board ad nauseam. The very act of interpreting a law, the Court’s _job_, is “activism” by any reasonable definition that has been propounded here, and this example is hardly any different. The fact that many may dislike a decision hardly makes it an example of a violation of the principle of non-activism, as you suggest, although it is certainly easier to maintain a high dudgeon by pretending it to be principled. Yet that too is part of the GOP campaign against “activist judges” that you mention - it’s simply code for “getting more judges to support social reactionism”. **Mr. Moto** , I do not refer to you specifically, but to the argument that nothing that happens or is said outside US borders has any right to be considered. > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court isn’t all powerful, you know. There are, quite properly, limits on its actions. Yet their decisions are final and binding until legislation or amendments pass to supersede them. You do know that, don’t you? If you disagree with the decision, it’s up to our elected representatives to act. If they don’t, it’s hard to argue that the people’s will isn’t being acted upon. Now, if you’re going to post Mallard Fillmore-like statements like “I’d love to hear some justification for it other than saying that the opinions must be correct since the Court made them”, please don’t complain about having words put in your \*own \* mouth, okay? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/87 "2005-03-04T22:03:33Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And that is precisely what they did - there being no more specific definition of “cruel and unusual” in US-only law available to guide an interpretation. “[N]o more specific definition … in US-only law available to guide interpretation” … other than the Supreme Court’s own definition from prior 8th Amendment jurisprudence (and quoted in this thread by **QuizCustodent** )? And other than the Court’s decision on this very issue in 1989? And the persuasive dicta from its prior decisions in over 100 years of 8th Amendment Supreme Court decisions? No, I don’t guess there was too much else to help the Court. So, yeah, I guess if the Justices were unable to find their prior decisions, then they really had nothing else to go on, right? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > This “judicial activism” you complain is in play here has been gone over on this board ad nauseam. The very act of interpreting a law, the Court’s _job_, is “activism” by any reasonable definition that has been propounded here, and this example is hardly any different. Your opinion on this issue would be worth so much more if you undestood what the phrase “judicial activism” means. Interpreting a law is not judicial activism. [“Judicial activism”](http://www.answers.com/topic/judicial-activism) is something much more specific: it refers to interpreting a law in a manner not consistent with the intent of the law’s framers; it refers to interpreting a law in a manner guided by the judge’s own policy preferences rather than the legislature or executive’s; etc. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The fact that many may dislike a decision hardly makes it an example of a violation of the principle of non-activism, as you suggest, although it is certainly easier to maintain a high dudgeon by pretending it to be principled. Yet that too is part of the GOP campaign against “activist judges” that you mention - it’s simply code for “getting more judges to support social reactionism”. Just because you don’t understand the words does not mean that they must be code for something else. They have a specific meaning, as addressed above. Unless I just missed the coded message of _your_ words … hmmmm. ---
**Author:** ![laigle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@laigle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/laigle)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/88 "2005-03-05T00:22:11Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > I’ll let the logic of your response stand on its own Great, now that you’re done trying to put up a facade of a point, I’ll let you cower off. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/89 "2005-03-05T00:44:46Z")
> [@laigle](#): > > Great, now that you’re done trying to put up a facade of a point, I’ll let you cower off. I assure you I haven’t conceded any of your points. I just made the assumption that anyone reading your post could make the fairly obvious conclusion left by the relative strength of our arguments. After all, boxers don’t keep hitting an opponent once he’s on the canvas, and your _ad hominem_ attacks belie the strength of your arguments. Can I assume you don’t have anything to say about the responses I did make? ---
**Author:** ![laigle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@laigle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/laigle)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/90 "2005-03-05T01:12:16Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > I assure you I haven’t conceded any of your points. I just made the assumption that anyone reading your post could make the fairly obvious conclusion left by the relative strength of our arguments. After all, boxers don’t keep hitting an opponent once he’s on the canvas, and your _ad hominem_ attacks belie the strength of your arguments. > > Can I assume you don’t have anything to say about the responses I did make? What point? The unprovable anecdote about jury duty? Certainly my anecdotes are just as unprovable, but if you’re going to try to convince me that my anecdotes are empty you’re not going to have much luck seeing as how I was there for them. Or perhaps you meant the goal post switch about proving false executions after the fact so you could avoid the point I raised about a steady stream of people being released from death row after DNA tests proved them innocent? Those aren’t points, they’re rhetoric and faulty rhetoric at that. Arguing them would be purile. I also note that you’ve given up any attempt to discuss the issues of relative weights given to Constitutional principle, the validity of examining US law in the light of a variety of legal opinions, and the need for uniformity in the justice system. As such, the debate is won. There’s no point conversing with you further. As for ad hominem, that’s your gig. I’m certainly condescending (with good reason in light of your side of the discussion), but you’re the only one here replacing insult for argumentation. Don’t bother replying, I won’t be reading any more of your drivel. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/91 "2005-03-05T02:05:04Z")
And once again you have managed to avoid actually addressing my points. You said something about “cowering” earlier? But I’ll address the things you did say here: > [@laigle](#): > > What point? The unprovable anecdote about jury duty? Certainly my anecdotes are just as unprovable, but if you’re going to try to convince me that my anecdotes are empty you’re not going to have much luck seeing as how I was there for them. You were there as a juror? Or a potential juror? And thus I take you were privvy to the educational level of all the individuals that actually sat on the jury? How, exactly? But wait! In order to have sat on the jury, you needed to have less than a high school education! So are we to assume that you don’t have a high school education? Or perhaps that you actually didn’t sit on the jury, and thus have no idea of the educational level or effectiveness of the actual, eventual jury? Moreover, you’ve failed to indicate exactly how many juries you’ve seen. Are we to assume that you’ve sat on dozens of juries? Or are you just guessing based on the one or two times you were called into a jury pool? As for _proving_ the educational level of jurors, here’s a [cite that relies on a peer reviewed study](http://www.abota.org/education/archive/mythsandfacts.asp): > [@](#): > > Myth - The unemployed and illiterate make up juries and are not a true representation of the American populace. > > Fact - Juries are typically chosen from voter and driver lists, which provide a fair representation of the population. A recent study indicates that the average prospective juror is educated, is employed, has a reasonable income, is somewhat older and is married.5 Interesting that it directly contradicts your assertion, eh? And here’s a [cite quoting from an article in the Oregonian](http://grumpy.blogs.com/grumpy/law_and_lawless/): > [@](#): > > Attorneys for a murder suspect claim (by reason of a survey conducted at the local courthouse) that most jurors are older, more educated, wealthier, and live more stable lives (as in: they’re typically married and employed) than the average county citizen (calculated from the latest U.S. census figures). Shall I continue? > [@laigle](#): > > Or perhaps you meant the goal post switch about proving false executions after the fact so you could avoid the point I raised about a steady stream of people being released from death row after DNA tests proved them innocent? Actually, **you** set those goalposts with this: > [@laigle](#): > > How many innocent people have to be executed by the state to make you lose faith? If you didn’t mean _executed_, then maybe you shouldn’t have said it. Any attempt to back out now would be – as you put it – goalpost moving. > [@laigle](#): > > I also note that you’ve given up any attempt to discuss the issues of relative weights given to Constitutional principle, I think the Justices should place Constitutional principal above their own beliefs. > [@laigle](#): > > the validity of examining US law in the light of a variety of legal opinions If by “variety of legal opinions” you mean “foreign sources of law that were rejected by the US legislature and executive,” then I think such examinations are inherently invalid. It’s not up to the Supreme Court to decide that we should have ratified treaties that were rejected, or that we should have passed laws that weren’t passed. And when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, the opinion of the French or British or any other foreign body should be irrelevant to the determinatio of what’s “cruel and unusual punishment” to _Americans_. The Constitution is an American document, that governs only Americans and reflects the will of the Americans that adopted it. Foreign opinion on that document is inherently irrelevant. > [@laigle](#): > > and the need for uniformity in the justice system. As I said before, uniformity is highly overrated. There’s absolutely no basis in law or reason that crimes should be punished the same in every state. Our Constitutional and federal system of government reserves the right to set punishments for criminal actions to the States, and not the federal government. > [@laigle](#): > > As for ad hominem, that’s your gig. I’m certainly condescending (with good reason in light of your side of the discussion), but you’re the only one here replacing insult for argumentation. Beautiful. Even in a sentence in which you deny making ad hominem attacks, you make an ad hominem attack. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/92 "2005-03-05T02:59:01Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And that is precisely what they did - there being no more specific definition of “cruel and unusual” in US-only law available to guide an interpretation. Note in passing that they’d have come to the same conclusion without invoking any foreign treaties at all. Quite probably they would have. I believe they should have. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **Mr. Moto** , I do not refer to you specifically, but to the argument that nothing that happens or is said outside US borders has any right to be considered. Yet their decisions are final and binding until legislation or amendments pass to supersede them. You do know that, don’t you? If you disagree with the decision, it’s up to our elected representatives to act. If they don’t, it’s hard to argue that the people’s will isn’t being acted upon. Sure, the decision is legally binding. That doesn’t make it constitutionally correct or persuasive. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Now, if you’re going to post Mallard Fillmore-like statements like “I’d love to hear some justification for it other than saying that the opinions must be correct since the Court made them”, please don’t complain about having words put in your \*own \* mouth, okay? Ah but the difference was that you were paraphrasing in a misleading fashion, whereas I have accurately paraphrased your thinking, expressed above: > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Ya know what? When the SC of the US issues a decision, following whatever reasoning it finds persuasive, it at that moment becomes a good old US domestic decision. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/93 "2005-03-05T03:20:29Z")
**Age** and others, a small but relevant point: While I can understand use of the term “judicial activism” as descriptive of a jurisprudential philosophy antonymous to judicial self-restraint, and have a problem with using original intent as the sole means of defining constitutional provisions, I’d ask you all to concede that it is **also** used, not here but in many public forums, to define a nebulous realm of “that judge overturned a law that I approve of,” when the said law clearly flies in the face of a constitutional guarantee of rights and there are sixty years of precedent for the decision. A statute calling for mandatory or coercive school prayers is a pretty obvious example of a law that might have strong public support and nonetheless be unconstitutional by **any** reasonable standard for determining constitutionality. And I guarantee that some public figure will declare the judge’s ruling to be “judicial activism.” To give you an example of where original intent falls short, strict application of its principles would mean that the U.S. Air Force as a national armed service is unconstitutional; it’s clearly not among the delegated powers, and therefore reserved to the states. Yet I think that even the most thoroughgoing of original-intent jurisconsults would agree that the authorizations for Army and Navy should be construed to permit a coordinate Air Force, national defense being largely placed in the hands of the Federal government save for state militias. But the Constitutional Convention didn’t **intend** to have a national Air Force; development of aviation meant that the intent to have the national government assume primary role for defense would suggest that the strict interpretation of the authorizing Constitutional provisios be extended to cover a coordinate force founded in the new technological development. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/94 "2005-03-05T03:25:55Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Sure, the decision is legally binding. That doesn’t make it constitutionally correct or persuasive. I don’t intend to be a smart-ass about this, **Mr. Moto** , but as explained to me in words of one syllable by **Dewey Cheathem Undhow** , yes it does. It’s possible to argue against it, to demonstrate why it was a bad decision, etc., but it’s the established law of the country, whether or not you or I like it. (In my case, it was the construction I put on the Ninth Amendment contrary to what the Court had ruled. But the principle is the same no matter whose ox is gored.) ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/95 "2005-03-05T03:29:39Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > **Age** and others, a small but relevant point: While I can understand use of the term “judicial activism” as descriptive of a jurisprudential philosophy antonymous to judicial self-restraint, and have a problem with using original intent as the sole means of defining constitutional provisions, I’d ask you all to concede that it is **also** used, not here but in many public forums, to define a nebulous realm of “that judge overturned a law that I approve of,” when the said law clearly flies in the face of a constitutional guarantee of rights and there are sixty years of precedent for the decision. Note original intent can be fuzzy. Given that a number of the Founding Fathers were Deists, one could make a fair argument that their intent wouldn’t have been to allow the 10 Commandments on public property. ---
**Author:** ![Well](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/df788c/32.png) [@Well](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Well)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/96 "2005-03-05T05:03:04Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > A statute calling for mandatory or coercive school prayers is a pretty obvious example of a law that might have strong public support and nonetheless be unconstitutional by **any** reasonable standard for determining constitutionality. But according to you and **Dewey** those “reasonable standards” would be irrelevant if only SCOTUS says it is. Apparently the only standards that matter are the personal standards of 5 judges. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/97 "2005-03-05T05:54:06Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It’s not hard for me. I listen to foreign opions all the time. I’ve even changed my mine due to this. I think the president and legislator should as well. But a judge’s job is to interpret US law and US law alone. Unless, of course, their intention is to usurp the authority of the executive or the legislature, or both. Except, of course, when we appeal to common law definitions held over from even England. Like, say, the definition of marriage. Or something. Just, you know, to throw something out there. ---
**Author:** ![Well](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/df788c/32.png) [@Well](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Well)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/98 "2005-03-05T06:42:09Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Except, of course, when we appeal to common law definitions held over from even England. Like, say, the definition of marriage. Or something. > > Just, you know, to throw something out there. Excepting, of course, 18th century English common law. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/99 "2005-03-05T19:40:29Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I don’t intend to be a smart-ass about this, **Mr. Moto** , but as explained to me in words of one syllable by **Dewey Cheathem Undhow** , yes it does. It’s possible to argue against it, to demonstrate why it was a bad decision, etc., but it’s the established law of the country, whether or not you or I like it. (In my case, it was the construction I put on the Ninth Amendment contrary to what the Court had ruled. But the principle is the same no matter whose ox is gored.) I allowed that it was legally binding, **Polycarp**. And the precedent can be used to interpret other law, sure. But let’s not gild a turd here. If Supreme Court decisions were always correct and infallible, the Court wouldn’t have cause to overturn itself, especially after only a few short years. And all of us would quote Plessy v. Ferguson as an example of correct constitutional interpretation and base other decisions on this precedent. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/100 "2005-03-06T14:10:01Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Quite probably they would have. I believe they should have. Then you don’t have much cause for complaint. > [@](#): > > Sure, the decision is legally binding. That doesn’t make it constitutionally correct or persuasive. You state that as if you believe there is not only such a thing as objective correctness about matters not susceptible to the scientific method, or objective persuasiveness, to which your access is superior to that of the Supremes. It ain’t. You have an opinion, they have theirs. Theirs rules. That’s how the system works. Deal with it. The saying goes, “They’re not last because they’re right, they’re right because they’re last”. > [@](#): > > Ah but the difference was that you were paraphrasing in a misleading fashion, whereas I have accurately paraphrased your thinking, expressed above: Ibid. :rolleyes: **AQA** Here’s a hint that might help you not only on this board but in life: When you’re wrong, you gain more respect by admitting it than by denying it and deriding those who point it out to you. This board is about \*fighting \* ignorance. Start with this: As **Poly** has already pointed out, “judicial activism” has a pretty well established code meaning in modern US politics, one not meaning what you wish it did, but that’s too damn bad - maybe you and **Liberal** can console each other over the world’s unfair insistence on not observing your own preferred meanings for your pet words. But the discussion will meanwhile pass you by. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484.md?page=6)