Supreme Court: California prison overcrowding violates 8th Amendment

Three strikes and you're wrong, bitch!

 

Mizzou - I believe that technically, marijuana is classified as a hallucinogen. So your plan won't release as many people as you'd thought. FACE!

 

You're mixing up politics & jurisprudence. That's a fine policy argument, and I there may be some justices in the minority that would agree, but that's not their job.

 

Yes, judges should fix everything.

 

The Constitution bans "cruel and unusual punishment."
The job of the Supreme Court is to decide issues of constitutional law.
Therefore, whether you agree or disagree with this decision, to argue that the Supreme Court doesn't or shouldn't have the power to decide if a state government is violating an amendment of the Bill of Rights through its administration of prisons is just silly.

 

The Constitution set up our system of "activist judges" by making the judicial branch an equal check and balance against the executive and legislative branch. Not that it's always right or fair, but then again, the other two aren't always, either. Hence, checks and balances. So I don't get why people get their noses out of joint when judges decide the constitutionality of a law. That's their job -- it's in the Constitution!

 

Bob, I think technically the Supreme Court itself decided that's what the Constitution did in Marbury v. Madison. But it's so long-settled that it's moot.

 

I'm a graduate of the Herman Cain School of Constitutional Studies.

 

It's fine. It's totally settled and has been for centuries, and the debate about it is purely academic at this point, but I wanted to insulate you from the predictable attack of one of the board originalists.

 

Maybe some of those released will get to meet some of these fine jurists! Shake their hand and tell 'em thankee kindly. A true Norman Rockwell moment.