The most dangerous man in America

Dr. Dobson writes:

Even those who are opposed to the idea of capital punishment for minors should be gravely concerned about the criteria by which the Supreme Court arrived at its decision. In writing for the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom I consider to be the most dangerous man in America, explained his rationale for the ruling, boldly claiming, "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international public opinion against the juvenile death penalty." 29 This justification was written by a man who regularly ignores the weight of American public opinion in forcing his post-modern nonsense on our culture. Kennedy further promised that the Supreme Court of the United States would continue to look to "the laws of [selected] other countries and to international authorities" in re-interpreting the Constitution. 30
----
Justice Kennedy should be impeached for taking such a position, along with O'Connor, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens, who have recently made similar statements. It is outrageous that we, the people of the United States, not only find ourselves governed unwillingly by a judicial oligarchy, but we are manhandled and lectured by this tiny body of lawyers who increasingly base its rulings not on our Constitution, nor on legal precedent, nor even on international law—but on something they call "world opinion." The American people have neither chosen nor agree with this opinion. Kennedy and his liberal colleagues simply pick and choose the people in countries or continents that agree with them, usually from Europe and Canada, and ignore the rest, such as South America, Asia, and Africa. This is what we call "judicial tyranny!" and for good reason.

Comments

[Michael]

I agree completely with Dr. Dobson - we should only based judicial opinions on native of the americas. Jesus is out (asia/africa), so is Locke (Britain) and Luther (german). From now on, court decisions will be based on native american beliefs. Finally, we may have some peace and harmony.

[Danny]

ahh wait: NAs emigrated from Asia back in the day. Thus we must all follow the guidance of the native horse. What? That's not from here either? You mean our national distinctions are meaningless? The distinction of native vs. foreign is of no inherent value?

[Steve]

Does anyone know how large Dobson's following is?

I don't expect the mainstream media to talk about this. He's a real reactionary....Archie Bunker with a bankroll.

[Wm]

Such brillant comments. Dobson is Archie Bunker .... Maybe "Justice" Kennedy could base his judicial decisions on U.S. Federal Legislation? That is his job.
A U.S. Supreme Court justice bases his opinions on Jesus, Locke, Luther ??? I did not know that was in their job description.

[JoeG]

More like Archie Bunker and "Meathead" all rolled into one.
Depends on what you define as "following" Steve. Focus on the Family, Dobson's organization, claims its' magazines reach over 2 million people. That's about the only hard number I can find.

[JoeG]

Um...Wm...I think you totally missed the point of that first post. He was commenting on Dobson's disapproval of Kennedy's (and the court majority's by the way) opinion that we should take into consideration international views when it comes to executing juveniles. Michael was, quite sarcastically I thought, saying that if we did it Dobson's way and disregarded international thought altogether, then we would have to disregard the viewpoints of any of the people he mentioned. A bit extreme, but I get his point.
International views on juvenile executions was, by the way, only one of many factors that Kennedy and the majority took into consideration. Aside from their conclusion that it is cruel and unusual punishment, it is hard to ignore the fact that we are one of only two developed nations that still execute juveniles. If the rest of the world sees it as unjust puishment, why are we ignoring that? It needs to be considered. However, it should not be, and was not, the only factor in coming to that decision. And it was a good one, in my opinion.

[Wm]

Whether or not capital punishment for juveniles is just or unjust is not for the Supremes to decide. That is for Congress to decide. Congress is free to weigh the opinions of Jesus, Locke, Luther, world opinion, etc, but not the Supremes. The Supremes are suppose to uphold the origninal intent of the laws as passed by Congress. Dobson's point is that the Supremes are exercising authority they do not have.

[JoeG]

So the Supreme Court is supposed to uphold any law that Congress makes, even if the law goes against the US Constitution? No, the Supremes are to look at the laws passed by Congress to make sure they are constitutional. Even Congress can cross its bounds. The Supreme Court is part of the checks and balances.
And in deciding the juvenile execution case, the ruling ultimately decided that juvenile executions constitute cruel and unusual punishment...a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Supremes had perfect authority to rule in the case, and it was perfectly legitimate to consider international views on the subject to come to a proper assessment of whether or not it was cruel and unusual. If 99% of developed countries consider it barbaric, maybe it really is barbaric! Dobson, as usual, is wrong, and only wants the Supreme Court to promote the conservative agenda of the religious right. He doesn't want true constitutional interpretation. He wants constitutional interpretation as long as it supports his cause, makes him right, and keeps him in a position of power. Much like...oh, what's his name now...tip of my tongue....oh yeah! GW Bush!

[Scott Jones]

American law has always been based on the larger body of Common Law. It is not binding, but has been used to understand how to interpret our Constitution and laws.

[The Atheist]

Hey, no matter how badly we want to strap 16 year olds in the electric chair, just remember, abortion is wrong, because abortion takes a life.

[The Atheist]

Oh, and JoeG is spot on with the cruel and unusual clause/it is infact the Supreme court's job to interpret the constitution and determine whether or not laws passed by congress are valid.

[JoeG]

Yeah Athe, they keep missing that point as well. Why is abortion so wrong that it needs to be outlawed, but then Dobson wants Kennedy impeached for making juvenile executions unconstitutional, and...GASP!...wanting to listen to the rest of the world as to what is a good standard to determine cruel and unusual? Typical hypocrisy.

[Patrick]

"Why is abortion so wrong that it needs to be outlawed, but then Dobson wants Kennedy impeached for making juvenile executions unconstitutional, and...GASP!...wanting to listen to the rest of the world as to what is a good standard to determine cruel and unusual? Typical hypocrisy."

It's almost as hypocritical as fighting to the death to keep a murderer alive, and also fighting to protect the right for a woman to kill her kids.

[JoeG]

I get your point Patrick, it seems hypocritical both ways. What I see is this...Dobson is coming at it from a theological point of view, this whole "culture of life" thing that is going on. If, as Dobson and Christians claim, all life is sacred from the point of conception, then they should be fighting to end both abortion and the death penalty. Dobson should be cheering Kennedy and the court for ending a portion of our death penalty statutes and preserving the sanctity of life, even for a convicted murderer.
From a legalistic standpoint, it is not as hypocritical to support a woman's right to choose and to support the abolishment of the death penalty. In many people's minds, and even the scientific community is deeply divided here, life does not begin at conception, but at viability, or for some even at birth. So in their minds, abortion before a certain point in the fetus' development is not murder or a criminal act. At the same time, that same person can view the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment. It is clearly not a deterrent to crime, seeing the list of people on death row, and not much is accomplished by killing the criminal. Some say the criminal is getting off too easy instead of suffering in jail for the rest of his or her life.
My point is, there are more ways to look at this than just from a spiritual point of view. The Court's obligation is to look at this from a legal perspective. I don't think the seeming hypocrisy in their decisions runs as deep as those in Dobson's supposedly bible-based points of view on those two subjects, at least in terms of his comments on the Kennedy-authored decision.

[Patrick]

"It is clearly not a deterrent to crime, seeing the list of people on death row, and not much is accomplished by killing the criminal."

The one thing that no one can deny that it accomlishes is a recidivism rate of 0.

[Patrick]

While I agree with you that unfortunately there is a debate about when life begins, liberals are actively fighting for women to be able to kill their kids even after they are born. It has gotten to be almost a weekly occurence here in Minneapolis where a new born baby is found stuffed in a dumpster, or in a garbage bag, etc. In many of the situations, if the baby is found alive, liberals fight for the woman to be able to keep custody of the child, and unfortunately typically she winds up with it. However, in the cases where the baby dies, the liberals fight that the mother should not be punished AT ALL, and I have yet to see one actually get any type of punishment. Regardless of when you believe life begins, these acts should not be supported and the women should be punished and should certainly never gain custody of their child.

[Streak]

"Liberals are fighting for the right for women to kill their kids after birth?"

Say what?

Patrick, I know you constantly disparage anyone not a conservative Christian almost instinctively, but you are going to have to give us names beyond Peter Singer to get away with a statement that outrageous.

[JoeG]

Yeah Patrick, I'm gonna need more examples than just that. In any case I've heard of here in CT or in NY, the mother has been tried and jailed. A pretty famous case a few years ago was the girl who gave birth at her prom, flushed the kid, and kept dancing. She was arrested, tried, and convicted of manslaughter. And that was one of several in the span of a few years with the same result. And I don't remember anyone but their lawyers speaking out in their favor.

[Karl Maher]

If you think Kennedy's the most dangerous man in America, you might be interested in my blog, Vote for Judges. Just use the Blogger search function for Kennedy.

[The Atheist]

Patrick, the point is that Dobson claims that all life is sacred...I never made such a claim. I am not against the death penalty on principle, but I am against the way we apply it in our country. I think abortion is an unfortunate thing, but I think we have to allow for it because I believe the rights of an existant human supercede the rights of a potential human when the potential is dependent on the existant. Dobson claims that all life is a sacred gift from god, and yet he advocates that the state should be able to execute children (who have already been out of the womb for more than ten years and probably almost 18). Who's position is more inconsistent?

[B.H.]

An independent judiciary is the most important part of our democracy and the main reason that our great nation has survived for as long as it has. Elected judges would remove the thinking academics that our now on the bench and replace them with dimwitted politicians battered by the changing winds of public opinion. James Dobson needs to stop focusing on politics and return his focus on the family.