Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 21
...lifetime of protecting juvenile offenders by repeatedly casting the deciding vote in cases involving life sentences and other harsh punishments for juvenile offenders. Over the past several years, the high court -- with Kennedy usually the deciding vote -- has issued a half dozen opinions holding that juveniles are less culpable than adults for their acts. Kennedy understood the considerable research that has shown that the brains of juveniles are not fully developed, and therefore they are likely to lack impulse control, making sentences of life without parole barbarous.

Kennedy has now discovered that everything Trump touches dies, including Kennedy's own protections that he established in law for juveniles.

Writing for the majority, Kavanaugh ignored past precedents and effectively reinstated juvenile life without parole, regardless of whether or not the individual has been rehabilitated or, as is required by most states, exhibited "permanent incorrigibility." In doing so, Kavanaugh set aside his assurances to Congress that precedent would guide his thinking on future court opinions.

Kavanaugh's insistence that teenagers who do something terrible should remain imprisoned for the rest of their lives is especially interesting considering that Kavanaugh was a blackout drunk in college who was accused of attempted rape.

In her dissent, Justice Sotomajor used Kavanaugh's own previous court opinions to point out what an evil little beer guzzler he remains:

In a withering dissent Thursday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor used language from Justice Kavanaugh's past opinions to write that the court's decision was "an abrupt break from precedent." She said the court was attempting to "circumvent" legal precedent and "is fooling no one."

Quoting from the dissent (public record, no copyright violation):

How low this Court’s respect for stare decisis has sunk. Not long ago, that doctrine was recognized as a pillar of the “‘rule of law,’” critical to “keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion.” Ramos, 590 U. S., at ___–___ (opinion of KAVANAUGH, J.) (slip op., at 1–2) (internal quotation marks omitted). Given these weighty interests, the Court “usually require[d] that a party ask for overruling, or at least obtain[ed] briefing on the overruling question,” and then “carefully evaluate[d] the traditional stare decisis factors.” Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc., 591 U. S. ___, ___, n. 5 (2020) (slip op., at 9, n. 5). Now, it seems, the Court is willing to overrule precedent without even acknowledging it is doing so, much less providing any special justification. It is hard to see how that approach is “founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals.” Ramos, 590 U. S., at ___ (opinion of KAVANAUGH, J.) (slip op., at 2) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Print the post  


What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.