Revision as of 15:35, 14 October 2020 edit Tom.Reding (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors 2,673,998 edits m Category:CS1 errors: deprecated parameters (last-author-amp=y/yes → name-list-style=amp; etc.) Tag: AWB ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:00, 4 December 2020 edit undo 141.156.145.65 (talk) →‎Dissents Tag: Reverted Next edit →
Line 54: [[Antonin Scalia\|Justice Scalia]] wrote a dissent joined by [[William Rehnquist\|Chief Justice Rehnquist]] and [[Clarence Thomas\|Justice Thomas]]. [[Sandra Day O'Connor\|Justice O'Connor]] also wrote a dissenting opinion. The dissents put into question whether a "national consensus" had formed among the state laws, citing the fact that at the time of the ruling, only 18 of the 38 states allowing the death penalty (47%) prohibited the execution of juveniles. However, the ~~primary~~prima vry objection of the Court's two [[originalism\|originalists]], Justices Scalia and Thomas, was whether such a consensus was relevant. Justice Scalia argued that the appropriate question was not whether there was presently a consensus against the execution of juveniles, but rather whether the execution of such defendants was considered cruel and unusual at the point at which the [[United States Bill of Rights\|Bill of Rights]] was ratified. In addition, Justice Scalia also objected in general to the Court's willingness to take guidance from foreign law in interpreting the [[United States Constitution\|Constitution]]; his dissent questioned not only the relevance of foreign law but also claimed the Court would "invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise", noting that in the case of [[abortion]], U.S. laws are less restrictive than the international norm.

Roper v. Simmons: Difference between revisions