Just when you thought the Left-leaning block of the U.S. Supreme Court could not get any more flawed in their decision-making process... The New York Times is reporting that part of their major argument in their majority opinion against the Louisiana death sentence was based on a factual error:

When the Supreme Court ruled last week that the death penalty for raping a child was unconstitutional, the majority noted that a child rapist could face the ultimate penalty in only six states — not in any of the 30 other states that have the death penalty, and not under the jurisdiction of the federal government either.

This inventory of jurisdictions was a central part of the court’s analysis, the foundation for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s conclusion in his majority opinion that capital punishment for child rape was contrary to the “evolving standards of decency” by which the court judges how the death penalty is applied.

It turns out that Justice Kennedy’s confident assertion about the absence of federal law was wrong.

A military law blog pointed out over the weekend that Congress, in fact, revised the sex crimes section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 2006 to add child rape to the military death penalty. The revisions were in the National Defense Authorization Act that year. President Bush signed that bill into law and then, last September, carried the changes forward by issuing Executive Order 13447, which put the provisions into the 2008 edition of the Manual for Courts-Martial.

It's hard enough when you try to engage in the political battle against the Left on an even playing field.  But, now we see that those on the left, even as high as our Supreme Court justices, don't mind using erroneous data to further their agenda. 

As far as this decision's outcome... As they say, "Garbage in, Garbage out."

That's what the latest Rasmussen poll would seem to indicate anyway.  It shows that public approval of the Court has gone up to 35% from 26% just last week.  The most high profile ruling in the meantime?  The first Second Amendment precedent in over 70 years...which just so happened to find an individual right to gun ownership.

Seems as though some Americans were actually paying attention.

 Hooray for the Supreme Court!

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the justices' first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.

To make it even better, the court majority went so far as to directly affirm a write to own handguns!  My, my.  they must be having little hissy-fits over at Handgun Control, Inc.. 

THIS is the type of thing that makes judicial appointments important folks.  Imagine the mischief the libs would start in our court system if Kennedy had got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning and voted with the liberals instead.  We would have had a 5-4, first time ever precedent on the Second Amendment that basically strikes it from the Constitution.

Scalia wrote the decision, and it caries his trademark common sense.

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

But liberals, take heart.  The good Mayor of DC plans to implement a system of handgun registraton.

District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents of the nation's capital to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.

"More handgun violence"??  Does this guy actually live in DC?  Is he insane enough to think that this decision means more criminals will have handguns??  Incredible.

***

More: Michelle Malkin - SCOTUS Blog - Red State - Hot Air

In case you didn't hear, this Monday the Supreme Court voted to uphold Indiana's photo voter ID law, much to the chagrin of liberals everywhere.  Which, predictably, has focused the boys and girls in the mainstream media back on the fact that the High Court is the real prize in the upcoming election.  For example, this from MSNBC:

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court’s decision Monday upholding Indiana’s voter photo identification law was another timely reminder, if any were needed, of how big the stakes are in November’s election.

The next president is likely to have the chance to nominate at least one justice.

The author of Monday’s decision, Justice John Paul Stevens, age 88, will almost certainly retire in the next few years.

The next oldest justice, 75-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by President Clinton, dissented from Monday’s ruling.

Democrats are concerned that the Indiana voter identification law — and ones like it in other states — will make it harder for them to get the votes they need to elect the next president.

“These (voter photo ID) laws are no more than a cynical attempt to suppress turnout among groups who tend to vote for candidates who prioritize working families' issues, including lower income Americans and people of color,” said AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, a member of the Democratic National Committee. ...

To add insult to the injury of Dems and liberals everywhere, the 6-3 decision was written by the usually reliably liberal John Paul Stevens:

Stevens’ reasoning was this: “Not only is the risk of voter fraud real but ... it could affect the outcome of a close election,” he wrote. The need to have photo identification is not “excessively burdensome” on any group of voters, he said, using the language of a 1974 precedent.

Well, I guess we can all say we've seen just about everything now...  A liberal displaying a little common sense in a Supreme Court decision.  Be on the lookout for those flying pigs.

In the meantime, they're longing for the good ol' days of Sandra D...

Simon Heller, the legal director of the Alliance for Justice, an advocacy group that opposed the Alito and Roberts nominations, said, “If we still had Justice (Sandra Day) O’Connor on the court instead of Justice Alito, we might have had a different lineup” in the Indiana decision.

“Without Alito and Roberts, I think the court might have come out differently in this case," Heller said. "Justice Stevens might have been persuaded by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter. Justice O’Connor was providing a fifth vote (for the liberal wing), but with Justice O’Connor having been replaced by the extremely conservative Justice Alito, it’s a very different court now.”

Exactly.

Some good news from the Supremes yesterday:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that President Bush overstepped his authority when ordering state courts to review the death sentences of dozens of Mexican nationals on death row.

The 6-3 decision in Medellin vs. Texas said the president can't force state courts to adhere to a ruling by the International Court of Justice.

The 1963 Vienna Convention says foreigners should have access to their consulate when arrested, and in 2004 the international court ruled that the death row inmates should get new hearings to see if not having that access affected the outcome of their cases.

After the international court's decision, President Bush directed state courts to review the cases. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals balked, ruling the president did not have the authority to issue such an order. ...

Mr. Cruz said "the World Court cannot force Texas to release duly convicted murderers. ... Fifteen years after two innocent teenage girls were brutally gang raped and murdered, their grieving families are a step closer to justice."

The Supreme Court's ruling said that while the U.S. had entered into the 1963 Vienna Convention, it is not binding on the states without a law being passed by Congress.

Exactly.  Seems like a pretty important (and what should be obvious) principle to point out.  You know, sovereign country, state's rights and all that.  With any luck, this type of common sense will be a harbinger of good things to come, (such as on that pending DC gun rights case).

As reported by OneNewsNow.com, the SCOTUS has turned down an appeal from an Arizona county sheriff, who's religious and ethical beliefs make it a serious problem for him to transport pregnant inmates for elective abortions.

Not only is the dilemma grounded in moral and religious beliefs for the law enforcement officer, it was actually against jail policy to engage in such a transport without court order.

An Arizona sheriff wanted the justices to allow him to enforce a jail policy that bars transporting inmates for abortions without a court order.

Arizona courts said the policy violated the inmates' constitutional rights. A federal appeals court in Missouri recently issued a similar ruling in a case there.

The justices did not comment on their decision to leave the Arizona ruling in place.

It's obvious that this occasion can be placed right along with the rest, in the stack of countless occasions where terms like "Choice" and "Diversity" are recognized and respected, until those with opinions and stands from the moral and conservative side of the argument are concerned.

For the first time in our country's history, the Supreme Court may actually give its own definition of what the Second Amendment means.  Meaning, does it provide a "collective" or "individual" right to gun ownership?  Given this from erstwhile "swing vote" Anthony Kennedy, those of us in the individual rights crowd might have reason to be happy:

Several key justices, including Anthony Kennedy, suggested by their questions Tuesday that they believed the Second Amendment was rooted in a concern for Americans' ability to protect themselves.

Kennedy referred to the "concern of the remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that."

A peek at the back-and-forth:

“Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say ‘No handguns here?’” Justice Stephen Breyer asked.

On the other side, Chief Justice John Roberts asked at one point: “What is reasonable about a ban on possession” of handguns?

Looks like another case where we'll all be saying "thank-you" to GWB for Roberts and Alito.

At issue is DC's gun ban...the strongest in the nation...(in a city with sky-high crime...go figure).

Nino weighs in on the debate over so-called "torture" of terrorist in a recent interview for the BBC.  Via Newsmax.

Scalia Sees a Role for Physical Interrogations

WASHINGTON — Justice Antonin Scalia said Tuesday that some physical interrogation techniques could be used on a suspect in the event of an imminent threat, like a hidden bomb about to blow up.

In such cases, “smacking someone in the face” could be justified, Justice Scalia told the British Broadcasting Corporation. He added, “You can’t come in smugly and with great self-satisfaction and say, ‘Oh, it’s torture, and therefore it’s no good.’ ” 

But “is it really so easy,” he said, “to determine that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the Constitution?” “It would be absurd to say you couldn’t do that,” the justice said. “And once you acknowledge that, we’re into a different game. How close does the threat have to be? And how severe can the infliction of pain be?”

"Strike a blow" for common sense, (pun intended).  He then went on to dis the European's attitude toward the US and our use of the death penalty.

“If you took a public opinion poll, if all of Europe had representative democracies that really worked, most of Europe would probably have the death penalty today,” he said.

“There are arguments for it and against it,” he said. “But to get self-righteous about the thing as Europeans tend to do about the American death penalty is really quite ridiculous.”

Those are the same Europeans that Democrats spend so much time worrying about what they think of us.  Here's hoping for more Supreme Court Justices who couldn't care less what they think!

This is good news:

WASHINGTON — There are many ways to lose a Supreme Court case, and by the end of an argument that was before the court on Wednesday, the Democrats who were challenging Indiana’s voter-identification law appeared poised to lose theirs in a potentially sweeping way, with implications for many future election cases.

The justices’ questioning indicated that a majority did not accept the challengers’ basic argument — that voter-impersonation fraud is not a problem, so requiring voters to produce government-issued photo identification at the polls is an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

Very good news.

Some liberals are day-dreaming about packing the Supreme Court.

If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two. Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll call of presidents who have used this option includes not just Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant.

Just close your eyes and imagine for a moment the shrill howls of protest that would have gone up from the left if George Bush and the GOP would have tried such a thing in the past few years.

The political/legislative reality of getting such a thing done, however, is a little more difficult than the author claims.  As conservatives can well remember, in spite of having a majority in the Senate, we couldn't even get many judges an up or down vote by the full Senate, thanks to Democrat filibusters...(and weak-kneed Republicans that wouldn't enforce our majority).