Greggrey, your comments are interesting and engaging, but they're on the wrong post. :-) This post is about life sentences for minors. The post about health care is further down the BreakPoint Blog page.

LOOKING FOR LOVE IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES
Last week, we the people, had been waiting with baited breath on how the Supreme Court would decide on various decisions. We waited as if these nine men and women had the final answers to the meaning life. Somewhere along the way we have elevated them to a position of grandeur that no person deserves. We believe their utterances will change life as we know it. If their decisions fall your way they have done a great and noble thing; if they fall the other way then they are a group of zealous ideologues that should be removed from office.
If you are over 50 years old you were sweating bullets over the healthcare law. If you are a Latino you were dodging bullets over the Arizona immigration law. The law that everyone seems to be ignoring is the law of God; that we should love Him and love each other as ourselves. God has given us this law because if administered properly then all other laws hinge on it.
The irony of all of this is the blame game that seems to go on forever. As Calvin says in the cartoon, it is easier to lay blame than it is to fix the problems, or so it seems. But is that true? I don’t think so. God has enriched us in all utterance and all knowledge (1Cor. 1:5). The word Paul used for enrich is where we get our English word “plutocrat.” In the movie “Annie” Daddy Warbucks was a plutocrat. He had wealth beyond imagination. Paul says here that we have utterances and knowledge from the Lord beyond imagination.
The point is the Lord has given us everything we need to know for life and practice. We need to understand that the reasoning and deciding of men are like the wind. They blow this way one day and that way the next day. For the most part their decisions are self-serving. They seldom bring out the best in man and for man. But regardless how enigmatic man’s reasoning is, he will most likely dupe the masses into believing he does what he does for their best interest.
But Paul says it differently. God has told him the ways of man is foolishness. That man is blinded by his own lustful desires. That man cannot be trusted. Knowing this why are we so easily mislead?
We need to ask ourselves two important questions. Why is it that we wait with baited breath to hear the foolishness of men? Why is it that we are not listening with baited breath to hear the wisdom of the God? My guess is that last week as the drama surrounding the court was unfolding God was on the back burner begging for your attention. So, how are we to respond to the court’s decisions?
If the decisions went your way don’t jump up and down in jubilation. Just wait, it won’t be long before the winds shift and bring disappointment. On the other hand, if things didn’t go your way don’t get down hearted and troubled. The winds are shifting for you as well. Where we all need to be is looking to God’s word for answers. It is in His word where you will find the truth, and the answers giving you fulfillment and meaning for life.
The next step for all of us is to dig deep into scripture in these troubled times. Digging deep doesn’t mean to read or skim through the bible. Nowhere does the bible tell us to read through it. Instead God says to meditate and ponder over His word. I read through scripture about 2 times a year to keep myself familiar with the stories and the chronology of events. But hardly a day goes by that I don’t stop and meditate and ponder over a particular verse or passage. As Francis Schaeffer said, “God is there and He is not silent.”

RED IS RED AND NOT RED

This morning as Cathy and I sat at the breakfast table eating our bran flakes a Cardinal landed on our deck railing. So she wouldn't miss the beauty of the little bird I said quickly, "look at the red bird." She looked up and said, “that isn't a red bird, that is a Cardinal”. I said, “I know that, but the bird is red. I just said red quickly so that you wouldn't miss him.” She then said, "well, the bird still isn't red." I replied, "if it isn't red what color is it?" She said, "I don't know, but it isn't red."

Thinking to myself I begin to wonder if she was going color blind. It hadn't been too long ago that we both had eye test. The doctor didn't find a problem and now I am becoming more perplexed.

The argument went on for some time without either of us giving up on the color of the bird. The final result was we decided that the Cardinal was red and not red at the same time. I made this compromise to save our ongoing relationship. We have been together for almost 50 years and I am getting to old to break in a new wife.

In my study of critical thinking the first rule is, something can't be something and not something at the same time. That is, an apple can't be an apple and a non-apple at the same time. It must be one or the other, an apple or a non-apple.
This rule makes sense to reasonable people. No sane person will argue that an apple is an apple and at the same time it is an orange. This not only goes beyond the bounds of critical thinking, it goes beyond the bounds of common sense. This last week we have been witness to this kind of foolishness on a national level.

We found out that the Affordable Care Act (Obama-care) was a tax and a non-tax at the same time. The Chief Justice allowed this argument and thus he is either insane, a complete fool, or is a ideological twit. The choice is yours. Why do I say this?

He allowed the government to argue on the first day the ACA was not a tax. That it was a penalty for not buying insurance. On the second day he allowed the government to argue it was a tax and congress had the right to tax the citizens. Therefore the ACA is a tax and a non-tax at the same time.

The bottom line is this; we no longer have anywhere to go to receive justice in this country. The Supreme Court is no longer supreme, it is no longer the final arbiter of justice. The law of the land is now whatever congress and our president want to make. All three branches of our government are now RED.

"Keep thinking about Lee Boyd Malvo, who was only 17 when he and John Allen Muhammed were killing so many in cold blood. An extreme case, but a real one."
-This is exactly what I thought of when I first saw this article posted...I have close family in the DC-Metro area (VA) and I was scared for them when all this was going on.

"I'm merely curious: is it the age you object to (should be lower, like 13 instead of 18) , or is it that you think all murderers of any age should face the same penalty?"
-Hey LeeQuod...I guess I should have been a little more specific. I'm referring to the age being lowered...at 6, you're an entirely different person than when you're 13-17. You certainly know alot less, I can imagine. At 13-17, one is well-aware of what murder is I imagine, and maybe even aware of the consequences as well.

Kevin Peet: If the 14-year-old had been the shooter and not the robber, I would have wanted him to have LWOP.

Anthony, the answer is actually "not necessarily." LWOP is still an OPTION, but it can't be a REQUIREMENT. The Court says that a judge needs to be given discretion to decide whether LWOP, or a lesser punishment, is more fitting to the crime and the individual.

I think all of us would agree that if a 10-year-old did the same thing, LWOP would be unjust. Where's the cutoff between 10 and 18? Any date is going to be arbitrary. So instead, as is the case with the vast majority of criminal cases, the law specifies a range of possible punishments, and the judge is tasked with determining the appropriate level for the specific circumstance.

To take one of the cases before the Court as an example, the defendant did not actually murder anyone; he was one of several kids who robbed a store, and another kid shot and killed the clerk. He's a robber, to be sure, but to give a 14-year-old automatic life without parole because someone else pulled a trigger seems to me frankly excessive.

One can, of course, see this as a power grab by the judicial branch over the legislative, wanting to preserve judges' privileges to determine sentences. And I'm sensitive to the impact on victims and victims' families, who may be called on to testify to painful events each time a parole hearing comes up (perhaps testimony should be recorded once so that it can be reviewed at future hearings). But "lock 'em up and throw away the key" is an attitude more vindictive than charitable, and I'm especially uneasy about labeling a minor as permanently incorrigible.

Anthony, I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, I'm merely curious: is it the age you object to (should be lower, like 13 instead of 18) , or is it that you think all murderers of any age should face the same penalty? I believe a 6-year-old was tried for murder in Kentucky, so a child could be in prison for eighty years for something they did in first grade.

Keep thinking about Lee Boyd Malvo, who was only 17 when he and John Allen Muhammed were killing so many in cold blood. An extreme case, but a real one.

I'm with Anthony. I'm not sure this is necessarily a good thing. A teenager is not the same as a little child. Any teenager knows it's wrong to do things like murder, rape or other major crimes. It's not like petty shoplifting or skipping school.

My view is that if you're old enough to murder - like an adult would murder - you're old enough to pay the consequences like an adult.

There are no easy answers to this, Anthony, that's for sure. Part of me is sympathetic to the view that we don't want a kid's mistakes to ruin his life, and that some cutoff age is necessary and whatever age society chooses is going to be arbitrary and not entirely satisfactory for most of us.

The other part of me would join you in being furious about a scenario such as you describe. Even as children we knew that some things are wrong, and murder is a special kind of wrong. I realize that the brain isn't fully developed in teens, some of them don't fully grasp the consequences of their actions, and so forth. None of that justifies or even mitigates the awfulness of murder.

Wait...so, an 18-year-old can walk into my parents' home and shoot them in cold blood, or break into my apartment and shoot me, and get LWOP, but a 17-year-old who does the exact same thing gets off easier?

Severe confusion...something's not right here. Could any given BreakPoint blogger or commenter please give me some insight into this? Thanks all in advance, this one has me baffled.