[Commenting under "Minnesota Supreme Court upholds consecutive sentences adding up to 90 years before parole eligibility for juve killer of three"]

"I can understand how those troubled by these SCOTUS decisions are not troubled by efforts to limit their application." Good insight.

Lawyers are the stupidest of people. Ivy grads are the stupidest of lawyers. The Supreme Court is the stupidest of Ivy grads, compounded by an acculturation to the arrogant, Washington rent seeking, self dealing culture. Supreme Court decisions have been lawless, unmitigated disasters, from the Civil War set off by Dred Scott to the American Holocaust of Roe v Wade. Every one has been a violation of Article I Section 1 of the constitution, giving law making power to the legislature.

Its decisions may be considered to have no external validation. They are the subjective, invalid feelings of stupid, East Coast elite, know nothing lawyers. All are biased, not in favor of criminals, but in favor of lawyer rent seeking and of big government, the industry of Washington. At best, they should be deemed advisory. No federal marshal will come to enforce any. That would require agreement with a decision by the executive branch. If any does, taser him, expel him from the state. Nothing will happen.

In Miller, the Court cancelled the decisions of more accountable state legislatures. The decision contains future forecasting, based on nothing, a finding of a 5% difference in myelination of the frontal lobes, continuing to age 30. That minuscule difference has not been tied to anything in behavior. Teens commit fewer violent crimes than adults. Teen crime is dropping. Adult crime is rising.

It is also illogical and harmful to the defendant. Say the mass murderer becomes a priest, and a saint. He qualifies for canonization by his good deeds and verified miracles. The flaw in logic is that his improvement has been within the structure of prison. Release would end the achievements. A diabetic was brought out of a coma with aggressive insulin treatment. He has been doing well for years, with no side effects on insulin. Let's stop the insulin since he is old and his blood sugars have been great, the Court is saying. That is its "feeling." No. Both conditions are defects, and will never improve, since a function is missing. Prison structure is the insulin that allowed the defendant to thrive.