Our "International" Supreme Court

In March, when the "under 18" death sentance elimination was decided Neal Boortz hit the nail on the head with this statement. Emphasis added ...

"The Supreme Court, you see, is expected to cite a Constitutional basis for its rulings. Not so in this case.

Instead, Kennedy cites a 'national consensus' and 'international opinion.' Boiled down, 'national consensus' is just another way of saying 'the will of the majority.'

So now it seems official. The Supreme Court will base its rulings on what is and what is not Constitutional based on the mood of the people; based on the whims of the mob. This is nothing less than the legitimization of the lynch mob. If' there's a 'national consensus' that old so-and-so must hang, then hang he does, regardless of whether or not such niceties as the rule of law have been followed or Constitutional rights met.

Perhaps the next step is for the Supremes to hire a polling firm to measure the mood of the people before they issue rulings on Constitutionality."

A very sad observation, but unfortunately true. I voted for W twice PRECISELY BECAUSE I WANTED HIM TO NOMINATE STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS TO THE COURT. Why? Because, as Neal notes, if we allow the decisions of the court to be guided by other than our Constitution, we are headed for anarchy. Yep Anarchy. If all rules are negotiable, why have rules? If all rules are situationally adjustable, are they really rules. Rules and laws should be well thought out at first and sloooowwwly adjusted. The framers gave us a wonderful constitution, which we have improved and screwed up over time. They also were smart enough to give the PEOPLE the right to govern, and to give the PEOPLE rights which the government cannot infringe. Our rights belong to us, and are not given to us by government