Informative. I think sometimes Bill overestimates how much the rest of us know. I perhaps had heard the phrase evolving standards of decency, but never thought about it, did not know it originated with Warren, or some of the examples Bill cites. Thank you.
While Warren may have supplied the citation for "evolving standards of decency," I doubt it was a product of his original thought. Social forces were already at play to unleash progressive policies. And it is not just the judiciary that subverts the will of the people. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom unilaterally placed a moratorium on imposition of the death penalty on convicted murderers that only received the death penalty after a physically and emotionally difficult jury trial. The jurors had to determine whether the defendant was guilty of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. They had to determine whether one of the enumerated "special circumstances" was true beyond a reasonable doubt. They had to to determine whether the aggravating circumstances of the crime and the defendant so outweighed any mitigating factors. Then the jurors had to decided even if the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating, was death or life without possibility of parole the appropriate sentence. If the prosecution scaled each of those high hurdles, then the trial judge what have to independently review and evaluate whether death was the appropriate decision.
All of the participants in a death penalty case - victims, witnesses, jurors, attorneys, court staff and the public go through an excruciating ordeal in death penalty trials. But Newsom and others feel free to supplant their own ideas of decency in over riding the justice process.
One has to wonder, um let me rephrase that, a rational individual has to contemplate what would happen if the laws of the land were not ambiguously written. Certainly, the wealth of the overall legal profession would be much less. How much laughter, in private, occurs after the legislators write such word play? I assert that they laugh all the way to the bank.
I agree "evolving standards of decency" has proved to be a very elastic standard. However, I think Trop v. Dulles can be supported on different grounds. I question whether Congress has the power to render a citizen from birth stateless, whether as punishment or otherwise. Natural born citizenship, it seems to me, is an inalienable characteristic or status, an element of personhood. Jim Dueholm
I wish Donald Trump had selected Judge Hardiman instead of then-Judge Kavanaugh.
Informative. I think sometimes Bill overestimates how much the rest of us know. I perhaps had heard the phrase evolving standards of decency, but never thought about it, did not know it originated with Warren, or some of the examples Bill cites. Thank you.
While Warren may have supplied the citation for "evolving standards of decency," I doubt it was a product of his original thought. Social forces were already at play to unleash progressive policies. And it is not just the judiciary that subverts the will of the people. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom unilaterally placed a moratorium on imposition of the death penalty on convicted murderers that only received the death penalty after a physically and emotionally difficult jury trial. The jurors had to determine whether the defendant was guilty of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. They had to determine whether one of the enumerated "special circumstances" was true beyond a reasonable doubt. They had to to determine whether the aggravating circumstances of the crime and the defendant so outweighed any mitigating factors. Then the jurors had to decided even if the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating, was death or life without possibility of parole the appropriate sentence. If the prosecution scaled each of those high hurdles, then the trial judge what have to independently review and evaluate whether death was the appropriate decision.
All of the participants in a death penalty case - victims, witnesses, jurors, attorneys, court staff and the public go through an excruciating ordeal in death penalty trials. But Newsom and others feel free to supplant their own ideas of decency in over riding the justice process.
One has to wonder, um let me rephrase that, a rational individual has to contemplate what would happen if the laws of the land were not ambiguously written. Certainly, the wealth of the overall legal profession would be much less. How much laughter, in private, occurs after the legislators write such word play? I assert that they laugh all the way to the bank.
I agree "evolving standards of decency" has proved to be a very elastic standard. However, I think Trop v. Dulles can be supported on different grounds. I question whether Congress has the power to render a citizen from birth stateless, whether as punishment or otherwise. Natural born citizenship, it seems to me, is an inalienable characteristic or status, an element of personhood. Jim Dueholm