Liberal reservations about the Court's death-penalty decision

Returning to the issue -- touched on in recent posts by Michael Perry and me -- of the Court's recent decision invalidating the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by juveniles, commentators Stuart Taylor and Jeff Rosen -- both center-left death-penalty opponents -- have published short essays outlining their concerns regarding Justice Kennedy's opinion and methodology.

Rosen writes:

Roper v. Simmons is indeed embarrassing. Social conservatives view it as the latest symptom of the internationalization of the culture wars, with U.S. courts striking down traditional practices in the name of purported international moral values. But there is a liberal case against Roper as well. It is analytically sloppy and glib in its attempt to impose an international consensus where none in fact exists. And liberals should be wary about relying too heavily on international consensus. To the degree that foreign authorities do agree about moral values in other cases involving basic rights, they tend to be far less consistently progressive than liberals assume.

Taylor agrees:

[S]hould the meaning of our Constitution be determined -- and should democratic governance be set aside -- by what Scalia calls "the subjective views of five members of this Court and like-minded foreigners"?

And if international standards are to be our guide, what of the facts that -- by decree of the Supreme Court -- the United States alone broadly bars prosecutors from using illegally seized evidence; is one of only six countries to allow abortion on demand until the fetus is viable; and is quite exceptional in requiring strict separation of church and state?

Rick