but this isn't the right thread for this

Mmmmpffhhh.
Given the amount of comments I write I'm amazed this kind of cross-up hasn't happened more often.

I hadn't heard of Icarusfallen and this is getting no play on any of the major left blogs I have seen.

It's been around for a while and is on my regular reading rotation...

Their blogroll includes Instapundit, Newsbusters, NeoCon News, Powerline, and Stop the ACLU; so I am more than a little skeptical of this representing left wing opinion.

By those lights, James is an unabashed leftist.

From what I've managed to see of the opinion, no. Seems to me they were going with the language of the 2nd.

Just returning a snark, but this isn't the right thread for this. Either the 8th amendment or 2nd amendment threads are more appropriate.

Are they? I looked through several of the high profile liberal blogs and saw no mention of this.

Well, here, for one. You know what happens when I go to multi-links.

Beside the point, but do you also agree that striking down the DC gun ban was overreach and legislating from the bench?

From what I've managed to see of the opinion, no. Seems to me they were going with the language of the 2nd. I'm curious; what other instance are you trying to create a cheap shot from?

I thought the Constitution made the Supreme Court the final authority on the Constitutionality of laws, including issues of the 8th amendment. Am I wrong about that, or am I not picking up on some subtle sarcasm?

^^ This

So why are liberals so pissed, in this case?

Which liberals are pissed, exactly? I saw no evidence that anyone was all that upset about this.

Correct, to a large degree. So why are liberals so pissed, in this case?

Are they? I looked through several of the high profile liberal blogs and saw no mention of this.

That point aside, James is correct in looking askance at the USSC ruling. Given the rather arbitrary nature of striking down the death penalty in such cases

Beside the point, but do you also agree that striking down the DC gun ban was overreach and legislating from the bench?

I think you mean "arrogated" here. If they had *abrogated* the authority, they would have been casting it away, not seizing it without justification.

Right you are! Fixed. - ed.

I thought the Constitution made the Supreme Court the final authority on the Constitutionality of laws, including issues of the 8th amendment. Am I wrong about that, or am I not picking up on some subtle sarcasm?

The Constitution does no such thing. Article III, by far the shortest of the articles dealing with the branches of government, specifies no such power. The Court claimed that right in Marbury v Madison in 1803 in a case that cleverly made them no meaningful enemies and then didn't exercise it again WRT the federal government until the Dred Scot case in 1857.

Practically speaking, though, we've allowed the Supremes to get away with this power grab.

The Assembly passed it by a vote of 42 to 27 and the Senate by a vote of 25 to 1, so it was a broadly bipartisan measure in California where many of the Republicans don't qualify as "real conservatives" according to your earlier comments. So, remaining consistent with your formulation for previous political arguments the California legislature was controlled by liberals.

Correct, to a large degree. So why are liberals so pissed, in this case?

That point aside, James is correct in looking askance at the USSC ruling. Given the rather arbitrary nature of striking down the death penalty in such cases, and given Alex's comments, are we now to see such castrations also struck down on the same rather tenuous ground?

However, chemical castration requires frequent hormone treatments to be effective and, to the best of my understanding, is quite reversible once those treatments stop.

It depends on the method used, if memory serves. I think that some methods are reversible and some are not. I'll have to look into that.

Hal... When was thta california law passed, and who was in control of the legislature at the time? Just curious.

The Assembly passed it by a vote of 42 to 27 and the Senate by a vote of 25 to 1, so it was a broadly bipartisan measure in California where many of the Republicans don't qualify as "real conservatives" according to your earlier comments. So, remaining consistent with your formulation for previous political arguments the California legislature was controlled by liberals.