Often times Justice can have a particular perspective on how the Constitution should be interpreted, and two highly qualified jurists can come to opposite conclusion on exactly the same case. Most 5-4 cases are good examples of this.
What factor or perspective best describes how we can have this diametrically opposed position of top scholars and jurists?
Taking the Roper v Simmons 543 US 551 (2005) case the Rehnquist Court produced some spirited but opposite conclusions by justices. It was a 5-4 Court, with Kennedy writing for the majority.
Choose one of the Dissenting Justices and compare the reasoning or perspective between these two giant legal minds.
Can you offer an explanation that would reconcile the divergent opinions? Are they really on opposite sides of the issue? Or are they simply following a particular process to determine their vote?
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH MY CLASSMATE RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUESTION AND WHY? (A MININUM OF 125 WORDS)
CLASSMATE'S POST
In the Roper v Simmons case of 2005, Chief justice Anthony Kennedy gave the deciding vote to stay the execution of Christopher Simmons because of the Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment clause. Because the offender was a minor at the time of his crime, the majority voted to overturn the death penalty sentence in favor of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Kennedy decided to promote the people's opinion that a minor should not face execution even after committing a capital crime. He argued that a 17-year-old is not mature and behavioral patterns at that age can be persuaded or programmed to do things that his/her matured mind would not do.
A dissenting judge, Chief Justice Scalia believed there were conditions and cases where a minor should be held accountable for his/her actions. He argued the Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment clause should not protect minors in cases of extreme and calculated behavior.
Because Simmons planned the attack on his victim and later bragged to others about the murder, Scalia believed immaturity was not the case, and capital punishment would fit the crime committed.