Blankley: black robes and betrayal
This time, I'd like to call attention to Tony Blankley's piece in response to the decision.
The gist of the majority's analysis is that whether the crime is constitutionally "unusual" depends on whether "evolving standards of decency" have reached the point in our history when such punishment has been clearly rejected by society.Do read the details that Blankley provides. It's sure to leave many squirming in their seats.
It happens that only 15 years ago, the Supreme Court found that the kind of statute in question was constitutional. But, rather than overturning that case, yesterday, the court found that in the last 15 years, a national consensus against such punishment had emerged.
I'm sure he and I are far from alone in our outrage that those who have willfully destroyed the very image of God should still be allowed to continue in the same image... It's bad enough that there are any murder convicts who are not swiftly and efficiently dispatched from this earth, but now we have created yet another rule with no basis--to allow one person undeserved life while executing others with no difference but age is completely irrational.
I think most will agree that in the minds of those who have made this irrational rule, there is only one remedy for this new contradiction--and that is to ban the death penalty altogether.
It's coming. Unless there are people willing to take a stand for the sanctity of life, we will soon see the value of our lives fall from priceless to a standard 20 years of enforced welfare behind bars.