The Supreme Court blows another case

In a 5-4 ruling the Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana is wrong in having the death penalty as a potential punishment for raping a child on the basis of it being cruel and unusual. One can reasonably argue that the death penalty itself is wrong and I can respect that point of view. However, if we allow that the death penalty is constitutional then it is a matter of deciding which offenses against societal norms of behavior warrant that punishment. In my view the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous of crimes that we need to discourage with the harshest of penalties. If brutally raping an innocent child doesn't meet the minimum standard for imposition of that penalty, then nothing should.

Justices Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, Stevens and Kennedy voted in the majority. The decision a president makes with the longest lasting impact is nominations to the federal bench including the SCOTUS. The next president will likely name two or three justices. I can not guarantee that Sen. McCain will name justices of the high caliber of Roberts or Alito. However, I can guarantee that Sen. Obama will name ones in line with Ginsberg and Breyer. Obama wouldn't even consider someone for that position unless they were dedicated to protecting the guilty and abandoning the innocent.

UPDATE:

Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online's Corner weighs in:

Evolving Standards
The death penalty used to be constitutional for barn-burning, horse stealing, fairly minor thefts etc. I completely agree that our evolving standards of decency make that seem like overkill, pardon the pun. But is it really a sign of our evolving standards of decency that brutally raping a child is also on that list? Are we more decent because we don't consider that a capital offense? I don't really see it.

Nope.