Why decided against something no one does?
Posted by aogWednesday, 13 October 2004 at 21:35 TrackBack Ping URL

I’ve been following the pending Supreme Court case involving the death penalty for 16 and 17 year olds. What strikes me as very puzzling is the “concensus” logic. As it’s explained by Old Media (obviously a weak source of information), the logic is that if no one does something, then it shouldn’t be done. But if no one is doing it, then what’s the point? If every state outlaws the death penalty for offenders under 18 years old, then what’s the point of a Supreme Court ruling? To lock in the political zeitgeist of the moment? This from many of the same people who endorse a “lviing” Constitution? It sounds like trying for a “gimmie” — “we got close so the Supreme Court should throw in the rest of the states”. I think it should be left up the various States and the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the case for this reason. It’s there is a concensus in which case the decision is superflous or there’s not, in which case it’s presumptious.