Supreme Court vs the People

The Supreme Court today decided that the death penalty could not be applied to those under 18, regardless of the crime, or the rules in any particular state. I've just started reading Mark Levin's book "Men in Black," but I'm sure he will react to this as an example of more judicial activism and overstepping.

Justice Anthony Kennedy,not quoted in the article referenced (I heard this on the radio), cited international trends (as well as supposed trends in the US), to voice his portion of the majority's opinion. Understand something, I am against the death penalty in virtually all cases --- for different reasons, but the big point here is that the court is not supposed to make law, or take polls to determine what the law is. The Constitution, so far as I know, does not place age limits on punishments, and several states across the country (19), have decided that the death penalty is justified in some cases for minors. The high court basically is telling the people and their elected legislatures that their laws are morally wrong.

Justice Scalia gets it:

In a dissent, Scalia decried the decision, arguing that there has been no clear trend of declining juvenile executions to justify a growing consensus against the practice.

"The court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: 'In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty,' he wrote in a 24-page dissent.

"The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards," Scalia wrote.