Based on Latvian Goat Herder Tradition

Before we begin:
I am opposed to the death penalty in any form. While my heart burns with anger upon learning of some heinous crime, and while I want the punishment to be as vile and painful as possible to influence not only the perpetrator of the crime but any others who might be likewise inclined, I find nothing in the teachings of Jesus Christ that would allow me vengeance over forgiveness.
∫∫∫∫

Roe vs. Wade will soon be overturned based possibly on the traditions of Latvian goat herders. Yesterday the Supreme Court ended the practice of executing juvenile offenders with the decision announced in Roper vs. Simmons, 03-633. In writing the opinion for the court Justice Kennedy referenced international law, international opinion, treaties not ratified by the United States, and an act of clemency by the Governor of Kentucky. Justice Kennedy was also overwhelmed by the “trend” of five states abolishing their ability to execute juveniles. Basically, everybody else was doing it so it seemed like a good idea to Justice Kennedy and four other justices. While the affirming justices did not mention Latvian goat herders specifically in this decision, it is only a matter of time before those traditions are studied and used as justification for rulings of the court.

Justice Kennedy did not address the universal reply of mothers around the world “If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you do that too?” However, in dissenting Justice Scalia gives more weight to mom’s common sense and the United States Constitution than the whim of Justice Kennedy.

“What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the
Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years. Not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to the evolving standards of decency, ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted), of our national society. It then finds, on the flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people's laws barely 15 years ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: [I]n the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.. Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court thus
proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.”

On January 13, 2005 Justices Scalia and Breyer held a rare debate in which Justice Scalia pointed out:

"It is nice to know that we are on the right track and have the same moral and legal framework as the rest of the world,” he said. “But we do not have the same moral and legal framework as the rest of the world and never had. If you told the framers of the [U.S.] Constitution that what we are after is to do something that is just like Europe, they would have been appalled.”

It is quickly becoming apparent that our Justices are not looking to interpret the constitution, but rather are looking outside our borders, traditions and laws for evidence to ratify their own opinions and beliefs as law.