Today in Jurisprudence

I haven’t the court’s decision from today, so I’m dealing with it in the abstract, but in that vein the case seems like a no-brainer. Simply put, we don’t execute people for crimes that don’t end in the death of the victim. Whether you think an exception ought to be made for child rape or not, the statute in question in the case seems to me to be as obvious an example of “cruel and unusual” as a case the court could hear. It is just outside the bounds of normalcy and standards of American society, whether you laud or lament that fact.

And I’d take particular exception with this from the Corner:

Let me put this bluntly — every time the Supreme Court meets in secret conference, it sits as a constitutional convention, rewriting the Constitution at will.

Now there’s a lot of misrepresenting and such going on over at The Corner, afterall that’s kind of why it exists, but it just seems to me that if Levin is so aflutter over this stuff, maybe he ought to give the framers a nice tongue lashing for writing the law with wholly subjective terms like “cruel” and “unusual,” and then maybe go on to describe how the statute possibly didn’t meet that definition.