Juvenile Death Penalty Abolished

There has been some concern on the right about the recent Supreme Court ruling. Sean Hannity complained on his radio show that the justices just pulled this ruling from nowhere, going well beyond interpreting the Constitution. He remarked that the Constitution does not prohibit juvenile death sentences. "It doesn't say or do anything like that." Indeed, but it doesn't say or do much. It establishes a basic framework of government, and beyond that it makes a few value statements. The Eighth Amendment states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." If we expect the Constitution to do or say something specific about juvenile death cases, we will be greatly disappointed. And yet, what happens when someone regards such a sentence as cruel? Who decides? We might prefer to suppose that the legislature be given the presumption here, but the practice has been to allow the courts the final say. Yet neither Hannity, nor other commentators address the core problem here, the usurpation of power by the judiciary. Instead they attack straw men, going on about how justices draw conclusions, or they speak upon the neccesity of getting their men on the court.

While I think these conservative commentators would be satisfied with a limited court, so much of what they say suggests to me they would prefer a conservative court.

Update
Hugh Hewitt presented a very nice explanation of the core problem, judicial excess and the usurpation of legislative power, and occasionally expressed a sensible reform principle. He has a brief mention on his blog, with a Scalia quote. He started his show with 12 minutes on this subject (and a brief summary of the situation in Lebanon) and is following up with John Eastman. I expect the show will continue to concentrate on this issue.