Originally posted by: tcsenter
It is simply acknowledging that it is not within the purview of the Supreme Court to second guess or question the wisdom of public policy or the authority of the legislature to determine it just because some members of the Court don't like it. That's not what courts are for, regardless of how many liberal activist Justices think otherwise. If you don't like the law, change it.
"Rant on"
If you think that liberal judges are the only ones who are activist, then you are woefully unaware of the history of Constitutional Law. What you are referring to falls into the age old debate between two camps of legal analysis regarding the Constitution: formalism and functionalism. Both are quite capable of being principled, as long as they use legitimate sources of decision making such as the text, history, social consequences, etc.
That being said, the decision that O'Connor handed down seems to be rather unprincipled. Recent cases from the court regarding proportionality of sentencing have held that disproportional sentencing is in fact unconstitutional (see Solem v. Helm; the general principle of which was untouched in Harmelin v. Michigan).
The dissent in the instant cases, specifically Andrade's note that the penalogical theory behind the 3 strikes law is separation of repeat offenders from society. This is fine. The problem however is that triggering third offense can be disproportionately disimilar and minor in comparison to the initial 2 qualifying crimes, and still result in a MANDATORY 25 years to life in prison.
Not only does this remove the power of a judge to determine the minimum or maximum sentence per the law, but it is also deficient in its reasoning. If the purpose behind the system, as the state said, was to remove dangerous offenders from society, how does it square with the doctrine of proportionality in Andrade's case. If a man commits a qualifying felony, serves his time, and then subsequently commits crimes thereafter in succession which are considerably less serious than the time before, then this law does more to punish for past offenses than future dangerousness. This falls very close to the doctrine of double jeopardy.
Furthermore, O'Connor used to be a legislator, so her deference to their authority on an issue she, as a conservative judge, would/has upheld is to be expected. However, personal beliefs as sources for constitutional interpretation are invalid. In fact, Justices like Marshall have warned that use of such sources would inevitably lead to the lessening of the power of the court since its only true
power comes from one idea: integrity. Once the majority of the public begins to feel that the court is making decisions more on personal/political beliefs than the text, history, etc., then the court has lost its legitimacy.
It should also be noted that such rulings should not surprise anyone. The formative years of the Supreme Court were typically conservative (using both formalism and functionalism mind you). There was a turnaround during the period from around the early 1900's to 1989, where the court became fairly liberal (Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, etc.) Since 1989, we've seen a return to the previous era's beliefs (although the decisions have been mostly contentious, with split court decisions, bare majorities, etc.) Interestingly enough, Justice Breyer read his dissenting opinion from the bench which is usually done when the issue is hotly debated.
By the way, the idea that the Court is powerless to do anything with legislation, or should rightly defer to it, flies in the face of what the Court does and has done, day in and day out since 1803 and Marbury v. Madison.
I'm not against locking up offenders, but I'm a staunch believer in letting the punishment fit the crime, and the fact that triggering crimes can be petty and result in 25 to life is ridiculous. The dissent even cites to case law, from the Supreme Court no less, that gives examples of how to properly implement recidivism laws. "Rant off"
