From: "Gary Britt" 

It relies entirely upon these few judges POLICY OPINION about the evolving
policy towards the death penalty and specifically quotes as support
therefore their erroneous opinions and extrapolations about the evolution
within the US and IN FOREIGN LANDS AND LAWS.  Justice Breyer continues to
speak out and write books and papers supporting the unconstitutional use of
Foreign Laws to redefine the meanings of words written 200 years before
those foreign laws and policies existed.  He and those like him believe
they can use the policy decisions of France as a justification for
overturning the policy decisions of a USA legislature.

The fact that there are other crazy liberal judges on state supreme courts
substituting their policy preferences, unlawfully, for the policy
preferences of the elected legislature is no defense to the indefensible
use by the Supreme Court of foreign laws and trends to redefine the meaning
of a contract written 200 years earlier.

This unconstitutional amendment to the meaning of words written 200 years
ago is nothing but a violation of the consent of the governed principles
that are the bedrock of the moral authority for the Supreme Court.  When
the Supreme Court insists on usurping the right of legislatures to
determine and enact public policy for what these unelected ideologues
believe is good policy they are acting in an unconstitutional manner that
brings scorn and disrespect for the supreme court and the law as a
consequence.

The words cruel and unusual punishment can't evolve any new meanings.
Contracts and the constitution is a social contract don't evolve.  They get
amended not redefined.  The constitution does not empower the supreme court
to amend the constitution.



"Bill Lucy"  wrote in message
news:MPG.1e80969a7cbfd61c9896c1{at}news.barkto.com...
> In article , email{at}from_Gary_Britt.org says...
> > Monte you are usually not this woefully ill informed.  In the past
couple of
> > years the case that served as the final straw on this particular camel's
> > back was a US Supreme Court decision on Cruel and Unusual punishment as
it
> > relates to the death penalty for certain murderers.  In that case the
> > majority of the Supreme Court, AMENDED via fiat the definition of what
is
> > Cruel and Unusual punishment, and in making the monarchial POLICY
DECISION
> > which merely substituted these 5 or 6 judges opinions for the opinions
of
> > the elected representatives of the GOVERNED, these judges EXPLICITLY
STATED
> > AND QUOTED trends and decisions and government policies current existing
in
> > Europe and elsewhere as one of their central themes in
unconstitutionally
> > amending and changing the meaning of the words cruel and unusual
punishment
> > that were written into our constitution CENTURIES before these NON USA
> > trends and policies were adopted.
>
> Most people haven't read the Simmons opinion, Gary. I have, and it
> relies almost exclusively on the Eighth Amendment, not some law(s)
> outside US jurisdiction. It should be noted that the opinion upheld the
> Missouri Supreme Court opinion, and *that* opinion said nothing about
> international law.
>
> This "foreign law" bullshit is merely a sidebar. The fact that Justice
> Scalia used it as a cudgel in his dissent is indicative of his ability
> to narrow focus on meaningless details, nothing more.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5