Justice John Paul Stevens, noted liberal member of the United States Supreme Court, was a dissenting voice in yesterday’s ruling that Kentucky’s death penalty was fine and dandy. In his dissent, he wrote:
“[Capital punishment is a] pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes.”
He also wrote:
“the risk of executing innocent defendants can be entirely eliminated by treating any penalty more severe than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as constitutionally excessive.”
It seems to me that he was just supposed to write about the Constitutionality of the act, but he has given his personal opinion, and maybe a way for it to be stopped.
This isn’t about whether capital punishment is right or wrong, but whether Supreme Court Justices should be activists for a particular point of view. I think Justice Stevens is out of line and once again stepping outside of his Constitutional role.
What do you think?
Related posts:
- Atchison County Native’s Goal of Becoming Supreme Court Justice Achieved
- Schumer: “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance.”
- Supreme Court Weakens Defendants Rights, Or Am I Misunderstanding This Ruling?
- SCOTUS Tramples State’s Powers Again, Rules Against Capital Punishment for Child Rapists
- Obama Administration Wants Supreme Court to Limit Defendents’ RIghts
