ANOTHER DISGUSTING DECISION BY THE FIVE AMORAL LIBS ON THE SCOTUS: GIVING PROTECTION TO CONVICTED CHILD RAPISTS

THE FIVE LIBERALS DECIDED THAT CHILD RAPISTS CANNOT BE EXECUTED.

YUP. (COMPLETE ROUND UP HERE.)

THESE FIVE SCUMBAGS ARE THE SAME ASSHOLES WHO BROKE NEW GROUND AND GRANTED THE GITMO ENEMY COMBATANTS HABEUS CORPUS RIGHTS.

• THEY CONSISTENTLY INVENT RIGHTS FOR THE BAD GUYS.
• AND LIMIT THE RIGHTS OF GOOD CITIZENS.
• AND IT ISN'T IN THE NAME OF ANY CONSISTENT JUDICIAL POLICY, EITHER.
• WHEN IT SUITS THEM, THEY CONSIDER PRECEDENT TO BE WRITTEN ON STONE.
• WHEN IT DOESN'T SUIT THEM, THEY INVENT IDIOTIC REASONS OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH.

OBAMA WILL APPOINT JUSTICES LIKE THE ONES WHO FAVOR CHILD RAPISTS AND ENEMY COMBATANTS.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

NOTE: HERE'S WHAT ALITO WROTE - IN HIS DISSENT:

"The Court today holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. This is so, according to the Court, no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be. The Court provides two reasons for this sweeping conclusion: First, the Court claims to have identified "a national consensus" that the death penalty is never acceptable for the rape of a child;second, the Court concludes, based on its "independent judgment," that imposing the death penalty for child rape is inconsistent with "‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’" Ante, at 8, 15, 16 (citation omitted). Because neither of these justifications is sound, I respectfully dissent."

And, the dissent concludes:

"In summary, the Court holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically rules out the death penalty in even the most extreme cases of child rape even though: (1) This holding is not supported by the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment; (2) neither Coker nor any other prior precedent commands this result; (3) there are no reliable"objective indicia" of a "national consensus" in support ofthe Court’s position; (4) sustaining the constitutionality ofthe state law before us would not "extend" or "expand" the death penalty; (5) this Court has previously rejected the proposition that the Eighth Amendment is a one-way ratchet that prohibits legislatures from adopting new capital punishment statutes to meet new problems; (6) the worst child rapists exhibit the epitome of moral depravity; and (7) child rape inflicts grievous injury on victims and on society in general."

MCCAIN WILL APPOINT JUSTICES LIKE ALITO.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

ADDENDUM:

The Eighth Amendment talks about punishment that is cruel. First, punishment does not become cruel just because it's disproportionate. And second, are we really striving here for proportionality? If a crime is cruel — as it clearly was in this case — wouldn't a proportionate punishment also have to be cruel, and thus in violation of the Eighth Amendment?

Wouldn't it be refreshingly honest if activist justices just bluntly us: "We don't like the death penalty and we can stop it because there are five of us." Sure, it would be tyrannical, but at least it would be accurate, and not nearly as nauseating as what passes for reasoning in these cases.

AND HERE'S IRREFUTABLE PROOF THAT THE LIBS ON THE COURT HAVE NO CONSISTENT LEGAL PHILOSOPHY.

Update: Here is video proof that dems like rapists more than the victims.