Politics: March 2005 Archives

So Young Joel wrote about Justice Scalia and the recent Supreme Court decision on the topic of the death penalty for juveniles.

Unlike Joel, I pretty much agree with Scalia.

I know this shocks my loyal readers.

Here is what I believe.

I'm not opposed to the death penalty in theory if it were carried out fairly. Since there are studies that seem to show the death penalty is always applied unfairly I would prefer it not be legal. I also see no justice in seeing the death penalty applied to people under some minimal age, probably 16. I also don't see the mercy in sentencing a 16 year old to die of old age in prison. BTW, I've always lived in states without the death penalty and I'm happy about that.

But my opinion about the death penalty is outside the scope of the argument that Scalia makes.

Scalia's criticism of the Supreme Court decision was because the court is making law, based on it's perception of "evolving standards." I, like Scalia, want the legislatures in each respective state to make laws not courts, especially not the federal courts. Then if the laws are lousy we can throw them out of office and get new people to make better laws. Scalia pointed out in a recent speech that it seems strange that anyone wants a world where laws are essentially made by nine unaccountable lawyers.

Now, if your issue is the death penalty, the court's decision was a win, but only because the current set of juctices favor your position. The next set probably won't favor your position. Then how happy are you going to be when they re-write your favorite laws. People on the current bench, like Justice Thomas, will be all to happy to have a conservative and activist court and will likely be achieving that goal in their lifetime.

Being a libertarian, I would like to see the maximum power aggregated in the smallest arena. So I prefer states to take up the important issues like when is it fair to apply the death penalty. If you can't convince your fellow citizens move to a different state. The further away the decision is made, the less power you have to influence it.

I recognize this anti-federalist sentiment places me squarely in a quaint, nostalgic minority.

The problem is that if one starts talking this kind of "states rights" talk the next thing you know you accidentally sound like some wild eyed Dixiecrat trying to keep the people of color out of public universities.

This issue, as well as the Terry Schiavo case, are really making me think lately. Here is the most incendiary thing I've ever said on my blog. I'll probably live to regret it.

How strange is the world when you have people who are desperate to keep Terry Schiavo alive and at the same time happy to bomb the hell out any muslim country and put juveniles to death? How strange is a world where people are upset that a cow, chicken, fish or sheep feels pain when slaughtered but are happy to legalize the purposeful ending of life of either an adult or an unborn fetus, a.k.a. a baby?

I came across an article on Senate rules, and how they could be changed. The article covers quite about of historical information about the internal rules of the Senate, and how they have changed over time. It's interesting to consider how rules about how the Senate conduct business, which aren't subject to much public debate, affect us all. I'm a big fan of the idea of letting bills and nominees come up for a vote. It's not that I really want the slim majority party to run wild, but rather I want to have a voting record to base my vote on. With rules and practices that prevent bills and nominees from coming to a public vote, we have less information to work with when it's time to vote. How can you say "vote for candidate XYZ, they successfully prevented a vote from taking place by invoking an esoteric Senate rule."

It's also interesting to consider from an organizational perspective how practices whether written or not can shape the institution's ability to perform its role. I would think any large institution, which isn't a strict dictatorship, faces this same issue in one way or another.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION TO CHANGE SENATE RULES AND PROCEDURES: A MAJORITARIAN MEANS TO OVERCOME THE FILIBUSTER

Don't get me wrong, thinking that I want 51 republican senators to control the Senate and run rough shod over the minority. I simply want visibility into the process. The rules and machinations which prevent votes on issues cover up the actual records of elected officials. In regards to the tyranny of the majority, I would be quite pleased if laws, especially those expanding the scope of the federal government, had to be passed by a 2/3 majority. Then no one party could control anything. That would require a constitutional change, of course.

[Link Courtesy of Powerline]