Hike sentence

Reinstatement of marathon suicide bomber’s death sentence exposes Democrats’ need to hide radicalism

Are Republicans paying attention? If they are, they took note of the Supreme Court’s decision — at the request of the anti-capital punishment Biden administration — to reinstate the death penalty against Boston Marathon suicide bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. They also study the incredible testimony of President BidenJoe Biden ‘Batman’ scene slammed for depicting subway attack on Asian man GAO says 114 Capitol police officers reported injuries Jan. 6 Trump calls Barr a ‘Bushie’ who went the other way PLUS sidejudicial candidates, including the judge Ketanji Brown JacksonKetanji Brown Jackson’s reinstatement of marathon suicide bomber’s death sentence exposes need for Democrats to hide radicalismwhose confirmation hearings by the Supreme Court begin in two weeks.

If so, they learn that Democrats know their hard-line positions on law and order are indefensible. At a time of rising crime, disorder and a growing sense of national insecurity, courts and law enforcement are expected to be decisive issues in this year’s midterm elections. Republicans should own them.

The terrorist Tsarnaev case in the High Court had more intrigue than interesting legal issues. Last year, I asserted that the overturning of the death sentence by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, unanimously recommended by a jury in Boston and then imposed by trial judge George O ‘Toole, was a progressive abracadabra classic.

Capital punishments were common in the United States when the Constitution was ratified. They were upheld by the Supreme Court. Indeed, the Constitution explicitly assumes that it is legitimate for the state to endanger the life of an accused provided there is due process. Therefore, no matter how philosophically hostile the three-judge First Circuit panel was to the death penalty, they had no valid way to declare it unconstitutional.

Therefore, the panel, which produced a mammoth opinion by Obama-appointed Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson, did what is often done in these circumstances: it looked for alleged errors that it could present as significant enough to overturn the sentence. of death, but not as serious as that. to disrupt the alternative life sentence, then basically said, why bother executing him when he’s going to spend the rest of his life in custody?

This First Circuit’s reasoning was dismantled by the Supreme Court’s 6-3 majority, which displayed the court’s ideological divide between six justices more or less committed to constitutional originalism and judicial restraint, and three progressives. convinced.

As a judge Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasSupreme Court rejects GOP requests to stop new maps in North Carolina, Pennsylvania explained, the procedure followed by the trial judge in questioning the jurors was eminently fair and did not fail to adequately probe the bias of the media; and the judge’s decision to exclude obviously unreliable hearsay evidence about a murder allegedly committed by Tsarnaev’s older brother and co-perpetrator, Tamerlane, was sound. Since a very lenient “abuse of power” standard applies to the trial judge’s rulings on the jury’s voir dire and the admissibility of evidence, O’Toole J.’s demonstrably correct rulings were easy to maintain. Unsurprisingly, dissenting progressive justices, like the First Circuit, justified the fact that the death penalty should have been avoided.

What was surprising, however, was that Biden’s Justice Department pursued the case. Understand: Biden officials are in the same place as the First Circuit and progressive dissenters on the Supreme Court. The administration is openly against the death penalty. Biden, a longtime political weathervane, typically shifted stance with the political winds: a staunch proponent of capital punishment as a senator in the 1980s and 1990s, when Democrats portrayed themselves as tough on crime , but suddenly opposed it when his party turned on law enforcement and called the death penalty racist.

The winds are still swirling, however. While the powers that be Democrats are woke progressives, ordinary Americans — including rank-and-file Democrats and independents — are not. It’s one thing to oppose capital punishment in the abstract, as Biden did on the campaign trail (or at least in statements issued from his basement). It would be quite another thing to oppose capital punishment for one of the Boston Marathon suicide bombers, who deliberately deployed explosives loaded with nails and shrapnel, sadistically killing three innocent people, including one young child, and maiming hundreds more.

Politically, in a real-life case involving such a heinous mass murder attack, the Biden administration couldn’t bring itself to oppose the death penalty — as did the US anti-death penalty attorney general. Obama/Biden administration, Eric HolderEric Himpton HolderReinstatement of marathon suicide bomber’s death sentence exposes Democrats’ need to hide radicalism Michigan Republicans sue US House district lines State courts become battlegrounds in fighting of redistricting MOREcouldn’t bring himself to seek the death penalty when Tsarnaev was indicted in 2013.

Yet Biden — being Biden — is engaged in cynical hypocrisy. Even though his Justice Department appealed the First Circuit’s overturning of the death penalty, Biden imposed a moratorium on carrying out death sentences. He promised that no death row inmate will be executed under his watch. In other words, the president will try to get away with telling the public that he has justified capital punishment for a vicious jihadi murderer, while simultaneously assuring radicals who call the air Democratic that he remains an opponent of the penalty. capital city.

Such hypocrisy is not a death penalty bug, it is a feature of the Democratic Party.

Last year, when Biden nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the DC Circuit Court of Federal Appeals, the senator. Ted CruzRafael (Ted) Edward CruzJohnson and Cruz will meet a convoy of truckers in DC on Tuesday Congress faces shutdown amid Ukraine crisis (R-Texas) asked her if she believed in a “Living Constitution.” It wasn’t a trick question. Even non-lawyers understand that the “Living Constitution” – the notion that our fundamental guiding document is somehow “organic” – is the animating conceit of the legal left, allowing progressive judges to locate new rights and mandates in the emanations drifting from its penumbra.

Judge Jackson, however, said she never developed an opinion on the matter. Yes, we must believe Ketanji Brown Jackson of Harvard College, who served as a Supreme Court clerk – for justice Stephane BreyerStephen BreyerReinstatement of marathon suicide bomber’s death sentence reveals Democrats’ need to hide radicalism Harris says Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘stands on the shoulders of giants’ Supreme Court restores Boston Marathon suicide bomber’s death sentence MORE, a “Living Constitution” enthusiast – after serving as editor of the Harvard Law Review, then arguing criminal cases as a private attorney before serving as a federal district judge for eight years, never much thought about whether judges are bound by our law. text and its meaning at the time this text was adopted. Sure.

And don’t miss last week Arianna Freeman’s interrogationthe progressive attorney Biden appointed to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, per the senator. John KennedyJohn Neely KennedyDemocrat of Louisiana US Senate candidate smokes marijuana in MORE campaign ad (R-La.). Time and again, Kennedy asked Freeman if she subscribed to the philosophy that the government can invoke “prosecutory discretion” as a pretext for refusing to enforce laws on “social justice” grounds. Freeman talked up and down and around the question — “word salad with no dressing,” Kennedy joked — but she wouldn’t answer it, which, of course, made the answer obvious.

The Biden administration and the progressive lawyers it is appointing to the bench at record speed know they cannot politically defend what they want to do by wielding the power of law. They must camouflage their radicalism because that would push back the American mainstream. This is a huge opportunity for Republicans. They don’t have the votes to block Justice Jackson’s nomination to the Supreme Court. His hearings, however, are their chance to shine a light on Biden’s justices, Biden’s Justice Department, and how critical it is that we elect Republican majorities to Congress who can control them.

As the 2022 midterm elections approach, no issue is more critical to the future of the nation.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, a contributing editor to the National Review, a Fox News contributor, and the author of several books, including “Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad.” Follow him on Twitter @AndrewCMcCarthy.