Dear Justice Kennedy:

I’m surprised that you joined with the Supreme Court’s Liberal Activist wing as you and four other justices conducted the usual Liberal séance to divine a meaning in the Constitution beyond the comprehension of ordinary mortals. But you not only joined the Liberals, you wrote the majority opinion; so who better than you to answer a few questions.

First, let’s be clear about one thing. I write not to argue about whether states ought to prohibit the execution of persons under the age of eighteen. I write to ask how the majority discovered such a prohibition in the Constitution. After all, we hold ourselves to be a nation of laws, not men. But if we cannot  find the root of your decision in the Constitution, we are indeed a nation “of men and women,” ruled by five high priests of that church called Liberal Judicial Activism.

Now to my comments and questions:

•Regarding the case at hand, the majority cite the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as prohibiting the execution of persons under the age of eighteen. However, those amendments make no mention of any age qualification for capital punishment nor do they allow for the “creative” interpretation of their language.

Question #1 In light of those objective facts, how do Liberal Judicial Activists defend themselves against the charge that the pages of legal gobbledygook they write in support of their decisions will never hide the truth that they are nothing more than power loving dictators who can’t stand democracy when it stands in their way.

•The majority argue that their decision is supported by the fact that some states prohibit the execution of persons under the age of eighteen. However, in his dissent, Justice Scalia shows that Liberal Activists re-define the criteria for the “state law test” as they jump from one Activist decision to the next. More fundamentally, however, the Constitution says nothing about a “state law test” as a proper method for changing its provisions. Indeed, Liberal Activists themselves appear to agree with this fact when at times they “interpret” the Constitution in ways that contradict the will of the People of nearly all fifty states.

Question #2 Given these objective facts, how do Liberal Judicial Activists defend themselves against the charge that they are liars and hypocrites, in substance no different from the worst pox-marked king or scrofulous dictator who ever invoked a “divine right” to rule over others according to his whims.

•Liberal Activists and their Liberal/Democrat supporters love to plume themselves about their love of “choice.” Yet every time Liberal Activist Justices divine a “right” in the Constitution, they deny choice to the individual states or, as the Founders spoke of the states, the “People.”

Question #3 Given this objective fact, how do Liberal Activists defend themselves against the charge that they view the People of the fifty states as nothing more than a bunch of ignorant slobs.

•Since Marx first babbled his lie about “scientific socialism,” Liberals and other Leftists have sickened the nation with foul smelling protestations of their love of science as opposed to the stupid and dogmatic devotion to religion exhibited by assorted “fanatics” (I need not repeat all the pejoratives Liberals use to describe religious people) who, according to Liberal dogma, don’t know what hydrogen is.

Your opinion, for example, states the following: “The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character. From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed.”

To this absolutist, ostensibly scientific pronouncement, Justice O’Connor takes the opposing view that the People ought to make determinations about a person’s intellectual capacity, maturity, and possibility for redemption on a case by case basis. Of course, the certainty of Liberal “science” allows no room for her “non-scientific” heresy.

Question #4 Given the objective fact that Liberal Activists cannot show that they employed the Scientific Method to prove their assertions (including their moral judgments) about every person under the age of eighteen, how do they defend themselves against the charge that they are frauds who disguise themselves in the robes of science and therefore ought to be regarded as equals to the most wretched alchemist or most disgusting “sun god” who ever disgraced morality and real science.

•Finally, Justice Kennedy, your opinion speaks of international law and customs. Therefore, I cannot avoid asking you some questions about the Liberal Activist notion that resolutions of the United Nations and laws of other nations are relevant factors in “interpreting” and “expanding” our Constitution, a clearly impeachable offense because any judge who acts upon this idea violates his oath: “that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God.” [Judiciary Act of 1789]

In advocating for the applicability of foreign laws to American jurisprudence, Liberal Activists once again reveal their disdain for the Constitution, indeed, for the idea that words convey objective meaning. For example, Justice Scalia points out that the Constitution grants no power to the Supreme Court to enter into treaties with the United Nations, with a nation, or with a group of nations.

Justice Scalia also exposes Liberal Activist hypocrisy when he points out that Activists cherry pick the notions and laws of the “International Community” they wish to apply to American law. He wonders whether Liberal Activists might bring America into conformity with most of the “International Community” by narrowing the traditional view of the right to free speech, the right of a criminal defendant to a trial by jury, the right of a citizen to be protected from double jeopardy, and the right of a woman to abortion. How much weight, Scalia asks, do Liberal Activists give to the fact that the United States is “one of only six countries that allow abortion on demand until the point of viability.”

Question #5 In light of these objective facts, how do Liberal Activists defend themselves against the charge that they are legally wrong when they invoke laws and customs of other nations as being relevant to American law and morally repugnant when they selectively invoke “internationalism” to force their own “religion” upon every American citizen.

•I cannot close before asking one more question about the “internationalist” views of Liberal Activists, who define “international” as meaning “Western Europe.” But Liberal Activists are the very people who love to lecture us that the West represents only a small portion of earth’s population. Think, for example, of the ancient customs and laws of China and its 1.3 billion people, India and its 1 billion souls, and numerous Muslim nations totaling one billion human beings.

Question #6 In light of the objective fact that these vast and ancient cultures represent the greatest part of the contemporary “International Community,” will Liberal Activists state loudly and openly that they find the customs and laws of those nations primitive, barbaric, and in countless other ways unworthy of being useful in “interpreting” and “expanding” the meaning of the words which constitute the Constitution of the United States of America. 

Those are my questions, Justice Kennedy. I hope you will answer them honestly.

By doing so, you will at least distinguish yourself from the bulk of Liberal Judicial Activists and Liberals in general who love to deny citizens choice by wielding power at the level of government most remote from the People before they scamper to hide in that incestuous, filthy, stinking hole from which they and their brethren pretentiously squeak pronouncements of their moral and intellectual superiority over the rest of humanity.

Copyright by A.J. DiCintio

Email Comments