Dens of Iniquity

Screw them:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Wednesday that sentencing someone to death for raping a child is unconstitutional, assuming that the victim is not killed.

“The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Fry Them:

WASHINGTON - Hundreds of people have been arrested and 21 children rescued in what the FBI is calling a five-day roundup of networks of pimps who force children into prostitution.

The Justice Department says it targeted 16 cities as part of its "Operation Cross Country" that caps off five years of similar stings nationwide. [snip]

Many of the children forced into prostitution are either runaways or what authorities call "thrown-aways" — kids whose families have shunned them. Officials say they are preyed upon by organized networks of pimps who lure them in with shelter or drugs, then often beat, starve or otherwise abuse them until the children agree to work the streets.

The cities targeted in this week's sting are: Atlanta; Boston; Dallas; Detroit; Houston; Las Vegas; Los Angeles; Miami; Montgomery County, Md.; Oakland, Calif.; Phoenix; Reno, Nev.; Sacramento, Calif.; Tampa; Toledo, Ohio and Washington.

However, if they don't repent, the latter will get theirs sooner or later--perhaps both.

But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

--Matthew 18:6

You know and I know that, like cockroaches, these vermin are only the tip of the iceberg. Yes, I mean both.

Comments

[Wry Mouth]

I'm certainly no Louisiana fan, in any sense, but the Supreme Court's just wrested another State Right away, and how do states get that back? Through the Federal Congress? As if.

The Supreme Court's majority argument here seems to be -- and I admit I am not the best at jurisprudential subtleties -- "you can't have the death penalty for anything but murder because we say so."

I don't even want a federal death penalty for ape, or child rape, or whatever. But I do want each state to be respected enough by the Federal government to be considered mature enough to make that decision on behalf of their citizens.

Ye gads. By the time these folks are done doing their job, what rights will states have left? Or will they only have the responsibility to PAY for all of the federal laws to be enforced in their territory?

Sad.

[Beto Ochoa]

I believe we can save a tremendous amount of effort and treasure if all state ballot initiatives and legislative bills are simply submitted to the SCOTUS for pre-approval.

[baldilocks]

I sense sarcasm, B.

[Beto Ochoa]

Sarcasm!?! Moi?

[Summr]

This is very christian of you.

[Beto Ochoa]

And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple,...

[notropis]

I agree with Wry Mouth.

Personally, I oppose the death penalty under any and all circumstances. And when someone in Congress proposes a Constitutional Amendment banning the death penalty in these 50 states, I'll be actively working for its passage.

Until then, it's none of the Supreme Court's business. If there's no Congressional action on the issue (and there isn't), and the Constitution says nothing about it (and it clearly doesn't -- the Founders, after all, were not averse to hanging horse thieves and runaway slaves, so they probably wouldn't have batted an eye over snuffing a child rapist), then why is the Supreme Court even considering it?

[baldilocks]

That's the thing with these courts. It doesn't matter which side of a given issue one is on, far too many of them--including the High Court--are stepping far outside of their constitutionally assigned roles. They're out of control.

[Bloodthirsty Warmonger]

We have reached the stage of our evolution where elected officials, preoccupied with re-election and bribing the people with their own money, have been palming off many unpopular decisions to the courts. This has morphed into the "rule of judges," somewhat like what ancient Israel went through during part of its history. But by interpreting the law, judges have become powerful because they can shape the law and how it is to be enforced. Such power can be corrupting, can give one delusions of godhood, and is very difficult to give up.

[dr.e]

"It doesn't matter which side of a given issue one is on, far too many of them--including the High Court--are stepping far outside of their constitutionally assigned roles."

you nailed it.

Ps., glad you are back writing again. welcome, always.

and nota bene: I'm notified by my NRA membership email this a.m. that I get to keep my gun here in the West. That the Supremes have decided. Out here in the west, the Supremes re-re-re-re affirming a constitutional amendment about our carrying firearms, is well, re-re-re-bewildering. What next? A ruling on Sky is Blue vs Other. Yes, by cracky. We rule sky is blue, dissenting judges say not blue, plaid instead. Meanwhile, serious issues of wiretapping, monopolies, USA run not by persons, but by corporations, go on the 'refuse to consider' heap

Thanks for staying point woman, Juliette

dr.e,
themoderatevoice