High court strikes down death penalty for juveniles

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Though you do realize the heightened scrutiny test is solely a Court invention, right? No one actually voted on having such a test for violations of the 14th Amendment. So I wonder what is the difference between using any Court invention in determining if there is a compelling reason to strike down law? Compelling reason is of course to be decided by the Court which is entrusted with such power.

Like I said, SCOTUS has the power to decide cases using any rationale that it wants to decide cases, and the only things that anyone could do to stop them would be impeachment or Constitutional Amendment. It deserves leeway and the benefit of the doubt when interpreting the Constitution, as that's its job.I just think that they should be careful when they use their power to contravene the express will of the Legislatures, especially when their sole reasons for doing so are foreign practices.

Sometimes activism produces good results ( Brown), but many times they reach results that are harmful ( Dred Scot), wrong (Lochner ), or sometimes just bizarre(Slaughterhouse Cases). I recognize that Activism has its place from time to time, but I think that SC justices should act with caution when exercising such immense power.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Like I said, SCOTUS has the power to decide cases using any rationale that it wants to decide cases, and the only things that anyone could do to stop them would be impeachment or Constitutional Amendment.

Actually, Congress can stop them several different ways, including, passing a law giving the Justices term limits, increasing or decreasing the size of the court, passing laws limiting what the court can hear, etc.

[DinoDoc]

None of which is actually practical, che. You might as well suggest passing amendments.

[chequita guevara]

FDR simply talking about increasing the size of the Court in the 1930s had the effect of taming them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

None of which is actually practical, che.

Not true. Congress does have the power to limit the Court's jurisdiction on non Constitutional cases.

[chequita guevara]

A People's History of the Supreme Court A very interesting read about the Court and how it evolved.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

None of which is actually practical, che.

Not true. Congress does have the power to limit the Court's jurisdiction on non Constitutional cases.

But that will never happen because it would be a PR disaster.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Odin
But that will never happen because it would be a PR disaster.

It's happened more than once without any PR disasters attaching.