June 26, 2008
TRY FINDING A PRESIDENT...:
Louisiana vows to nullify child-rape ruling (Tom Ramstack, June 26, 2008, Washington Times)
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said he will seek to enact laws that would invalidate Wednesday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down the death penalty for raping a child."One thing is clear," said Mr. Jindal, a Republican. "The five members of the court who issued the opinion do not share the same standards of decency as the people of Louisiana."
...who'd send troops to stop that Nullification. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 26, 2008 8:17 AM
Anthony Kennedy has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.
Posted by: Old Hickory at June 26, 2008 9:34 AMWhy can't they invalidate it? Only the Court says they can't.
Posted by: oj at June 26, 2008 11:15 AMAll the Court has is respect. Standing up for child rapists is not a good way to keep it.....
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at June 26, 2008 11:45 AMThe Court's ruling was based on a claim of an evolving consensus. I would think that Louisiana and other states adopting statutes in contrary to the ruling should at least argue against such a consensus.
Posted by: John Thacker at June 26, 2008 11:59 AMIt seems to me that the first question any potential judge nominee needs to be asked is "What moral authority do the courts have?" Any answer other than "None whatsoever" should be immediately disqualifying.
Posted by: b at June 26, 2008 12:19 PMBut what law does Jindal propose when he states he will "seek to enact laws that will invalidate" the Supreme Court ruling? Louisiana already has the statute imposing capital punishment for this crime.
If he intends to disregard the ruling and to proceed with the sentence imposed upon the convict, I do not see where that requires any enactment of laws.
Posted by: james at June 26, 2008 12:55 PMNo, it doesn't require a new law, but they'd have fun enacting one that says the decision of the Court shall be null and void in LA.
Posted by: oj at June 26, 2008 1:50 PMAnd if the rest of you feel like throwing up before the hour is over, skim through the amicus brief by British legal scholars that successfully told the Supremes how to interpret the American Constitution.
In the discussion of British legal practice the earliest date of any law I saw discussed was 1841, which, as you may have noticed, is quite a long time after 1776 or even 1789.
And before you think I'm picking on the British, note that the brief repeatedly mentions that our own Supreme Court has stated that "international opinion" is a legitimate source for their rulings. I don't blame the Brits, I blame five deficient imbeciles in black robes.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at June 26, 2008 6:34 PMThe animal that committed the crime should be dragged from prison by a mob and strung up in the nearest public square.
The five justices should be tarred and feathered immediately before the hanging.
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at June 26, 2008 6:51 PM
Hard to see how he could enact a law to invalidate the ruling, (short of a constitutional amendment) other than perhaps amending the homicide statutes to exempt anyone who kills a convicted child rapist.
Posted by: james at June 26, 2008 8:59 AM