Sunday, August 07, 2005

Death to the Death Penalty?

So it seems that one of our illustrious black robed masters thinks that the death penalty is seriously flawed.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Mitchell, er Stevens spoke at the American Bar Association. Funny, I didn't know he partook of spirits. Maybe that's why he said such foolish things. He didn't say outright that he wanted to abolish the death penalty, but he said that some recent cases in which DNA evidence exonerated some death row denizens might call its use into question "'not only because of its relevance to the debate about the wisdom of continuing to administer capital punishment but also because it indicates that there must be serious flaws in our administration of criminal justice.'"
What? The system must have flaws because some wrongly convicted people were exonerated? This "flawed" system just reversed their convictions. Justice was served. Idiocy like this doesn't belong on any court. "Other Supreme Court justices, including Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have also spoken out about concerns that defendants in murder cases are not adequately represented at trial." And whose blinking fault is that? Not the laws, but the lawyers. The system is "flawed" because a defendant hires an incompetent attorney? Abolish the death penalty? How about abolishing the lawyers?
He goes on to impugn the juries who sentence people to death, and elected judges. Oh, so let's just sweep all our constitutional rights away. We'll entrust our lives to your tender mercies? Hell no! He moans over the fact that victim impact statements might make juries more likely to impose death on a murderer. Apparently to him the victims don't matter, it's all about the killer.
Of course all this anti-death penalty talk leads to the point that he's "considered one of the most liberal justices." Yup, the ol' death to America, but not to killers liberal. He probably sobbed when he heard that Justice O'Connor announced her retirement. "Stevens told lawyers that her departure was 'sad news for me. It's really a very, very wrenching experience,' he said." Ha! More like a red letter day for the nation.
Seated in the audience for this drivel was Cecilia Marshall the widow of Thurgood Marshall, the worst person ever to hold a seat, except for Roger Taney. The story blathers about how Justice Marshall "was a critic of the death penalty and argued that it was unconstitutional under any circumstances."
All right, let's take a look at this. The Founders wrote the Constitution. The Founders lived in a time of capital punishment by forms such as drawing and quartering. The Constitution bars "cruel and unusual punishment." Where in the Constitution was capital punishment banned? Nowhere. A strict constructionist would see no impediment to executions. And a strict constructionist is the only type of person who should interpret the Constitution. Constitution haters such as Justice Stevens and Marshall are dangerous to our Constitutional Republic. Fortunately one is gone, and the other may soon follow. The day Justice Stevens leaves the court should be proclaimed a dies festi, with much rejoicing.