The American Spectator

Re: Roper vs. Simmons:

The decision to halt these executions does not upset me, but the justification used has me angrier than I have been since Al Gore tried to steal the election.

This citizen finds it unacceptable for our high court to be entertaining any form of “international law” as an excuse for enacting (and that is what they are doing) into law whatever they damn well please. In my judgment the mere use or reference to “international law” by a SCOTUS justice constitutes an impeachable offense.

Why?

1) The US Constitution, Article VI, requires that “…judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”�

2) Basing judicial decisions on cherry-picked aspects of “international law” is an inherent violation of the duty of all US civil servants to act in accordance to law and the United States Constitution.

What are we going to do? This cannot be allowed to stand, much less continue to grow. The five justices who decided this are out of control and the people must reassert themselves. I have written more emails on this issue than any other in my entire life. Keep up the pressure.

Regarding George Neumayr’s “Constitution Killers”: The genius of the U.S. Constitution is in how simple a document it is. The Breyers, Ginsburgs, and the Kennedys of the court seem miffed that it’s not a more complex construct. After reading the Breyer-Scalia debate a while back, one can draw a conclusion that Breyer regrets decisions based on a simple document, for being simple. Instead he and liberals in general tend to think that, ignoble vacuous research on meaningless tangents outside of U.S. jurisprudence, suffering, or a pretense of suffering to reach a conclusion that is convoluted and complex is somehow better, or appears more intellectual. Thus in the end, no one is really harmed, until the court’s decision have their impact in society.