A Day of Firsts, Part 2

My current happiness for my fellow Americans in DC, in the wake of today's reversal of the District's thirty-year-old, unconstitutional gun ban, is dampened somewhat by my disappointment on behalf of my fellow Americans in Louisiana, ala another decision of the Supreme Court, which was rendered yesterday. Apparently believing themselves to be a super-sovereign legislative council, the court ruled that the state of Louisiana has no right to enact or execute its own laws regarding the sentencing of violent criminals if the high court doesn't approve of them.

The specific case in question was that of a New Orleans monster named Patrick Kennedy. In 2002, he brutally raped an eight-year-old girl (his stepdaughter, no less). A 300 pound ogre, Kennedy caused extensive internal injuries to the little girl: emergency surgery had to be performed to keep her from bleeding out.

He's not a murderer (by the grace of God and the skill of good doctors), but in Louisiana, people who rape children under the age of twelve can be sentenced to death. This sentence was handed down unanimously by the jury (not arbitrarily by a judge), and upheld on appeal by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

The appeal then went to the SCOTUS, where by a 5-4 vote the law was deemed unconstitutional, as a violation of the eighth amendment (cruel and unusual punishment).

Now I personally don't think it's excessive or cruel to execute inhuman animals who brutalize innocent defenseless children in this way. Neither did the legislature of Louisiana who passed the law. Neither did the governor who signed it. Neither did the jury who handed down the sentence. Neither, I suspect, do a majority of Louisianans (in the parts of Louisiana I've been to, which are considerable, you'd be hard pressed to find many who do). In all likelyhood, neither do you: put your own daughter, or niece, or neighbor's kid, in the shoes of this poor little girl and then tell me that "cruel" and "unusual" wouldn't be the very nicest words usable to describe the way you would make this worthless mongrel die.

But apparently, all of that means nothing if Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Kennedy hold a different opinion. Their basis for this ruling is nothing more than their personal opinion that the convicted rapist's crime just wasn't serious enough. They have no solid basis in the constitution to make this decision, or determine policy, for the sovereign state of Louisiana.

Governor Bobby Jindal agrees. He has vowed to "nullify" the Supreme Court's decision. That's some pretty ballsy talk, but I believe it is exactly the kind of talk we need (followed, of course, by action). The federal government as a whole, and the SCOTUS in particular, have been marching steadily down the road toward totalitarianism for a long time now, and the pace has quickened in recent years. Laws are passed and rulings made with little or no attention to the constitution upon which they are supposed to be based. This has been allowed both by a growing ignorance of the constitution among the public (I suggest you read it for yourself, link posted below) and by a generally weak and defeatist attitude; a simple acceptance of the falsehood that we are powerless subjects of an unassailable government. I for one, submit that this is bullshit. You can quote me on this:

The Supreme Court of the United States must be openly defied on this matter.

Jindal's plan is to push for new legislation which will alter the paradigm of the case and render the ruling moot. I could be wrong, but I can't see how this would ever work. The crime is what it is, and nothing will change that. Any new law will just be struck down again.

But that's only as long as the court's ruling is willfully observed. Ultimately, if Jindal wants to nullify this unlawful ruling, I think there is only one real course: execute Patrick Kennedy. If a date has been set, abide by it. If not, set one, and carry out the sentence in accordance with Louisiana law. Then, Bobby, face the Supreme Court, and extend your middle finger. This would doubtlessly cause repercussions, possibly including the use of force by the feds (not to mention nauseating amounts of televised melodrama). Hell if it comes to that, I might drive down to Baton Rouge and stand in front of the capitol to block them, hopefully in the company of many, many other like-minded fools.

Perhaps one of them would be Democrat presidential hopeful Barack Obama. In an unexpected fit of sense today, Obama, while being generally critical of the death penalty, opined:

"I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution."

And from his book, The Audacity of Hope (there's that damned buzzword again):

"While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes — mass murder, the rape and murder of a child — so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment,"

Republican nominee John McCain also stepped his IQ up just enough to agree with me:

"[The Supreme Court's] ruling is an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime."

And finally, Bobby Jindal's assertion:

"One thing is clear, the five members of the court who issued the opinion do not share the same standards of decency as the people of Louisiana."

All too true. Decency has never been the concern of despots.

Louisiana Vows to Nullify Child-Rape Ruling, via Washington Times
What Patrick Kennedy actually did to this 8 year-old girl, via Michelle Malkin.com
Obama and McCain agree with Big Whiskey, via MSNBC
The Constitution of the United States of America, via Cornell University