"The judicial branch, according to my understanding, is charged with seeing that justice is carried out according to the laws created by the legislative branch, representing the people, and signed into law." 

You might want to read up about Marbury v. Madison the case that established Judicial Review. They have the right to strike down a law deemed by them as unconstitutional.

 Yes, Chica -- they have the right to strike down a law deemed by them as unconstitutional.  There were several other states besides Louisiana that had the same law.  I wonder if they'd strike it if 50 states had it.  I just disagree with them, as I have in other cases. 

For instances, did you know that in the Kelo case, the case using eminent domain as a method of taking one's property so that it could be used by another private entity, the land upon which Kelo's house sat is now vacant because the new owner can't get its finances in order to start up that business?  That one just burns my cork.  (That's an old expression from my mother-in-law.  I'd never heard it before she said it, but of course I knew what it meant.)

Your understanding is flawed. The judicial branch is part of the checks and balances system. The Supreme Court is also there to make sure that the laws passed by the legislative and executive branch do not violate the constitution, the established law or "fact". They only do this when a lawsuit is filed over a law and the lower court decisions get appealled (by either side) up to the Supreme Court. I refer you to Article 3 of the constitution which establishes the Supreme Court and its duties. Also refer to the case Chica cites for the explicit precedence of striking down unconstitutional laws.

Required reading on the subject when I was an undergraduate at C. S. Long Beach many years ago: Claude G. Bowers' The Tragic Era. It helps to understand the present Triune Federal Dictatorship that evolved after Lincoln's War.

Schwaine:   Flawed, shlawed.  In a national referendum, my understanding is that I would be in the majority.  My belief is that I would be in the majority.  Too bad we can't find out.  Also, as far as I am aware, there is nothing unconstitutional about the death sentence, particularly for cretinous savages such as the one who appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court re the Louisiana law.  Unconstitutional:  the five "justices" who ruled in the savage's favor.  But then that's my opinion.  And I'm sticking to it. 

 Sam -- I'll get to that required reading, you can be sure.

The constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, so yeah, it would be unconstitutional if deemed to be cruel and unusual. You can argue if it is cruel and unusual, but since the current Supreme Court has deemed it such, the law is struck down as unconstitutional. Thems the breaks.

Louisiana and a few other states and their legislatures did not believe the death penalty for child rapists to be cruel and unusual punishment.  I agree with Louisiana and those other states.  Who cares about the cruel and unusual "punishment" for the child?  What did the child do to deserve this kind of treatment from some monster right out of the swamp?  The new Governor of the State of Louisiana was on TV the day of the Supreme Court's decision stating that the child had had to have surgery because of what this cretin did to her, and that she will never have children. 

I guess "them's" the breaks. 

The Governor also stated that Louisiana was instituting the "punishment" of chemical castration for the savage monstrosities posing as humans who commit the crime of child rape.  No doubt the A.C.L.U. will attempt to take that to the U.S. Supreme Court -- you know, so cruel and unusual. 

By the time all these appeals creep through the judicial system, the creep who committed the crime will likely be out on parole -- unless Louisiana has somewhat more sensible sentencing guidelines than do many other states.  At any rate, while out on parole the cretin can keep on doing what he does best -- ruining the lives of as many children as possible in any manner possible just as rapidly as possible.  That is the reason I also favor as punishment imprisonment without the possibility of parole under any circumstances.  In other words, the cretin cannot get out of prison except feet first. The reason, of course, is that if the monster is incapable of rape, per se (which is doubtful even though being "treated" by chemical castration), he is capable of using any other appendage to do harm.  Death or permanent imprisonment would preclude such acts. 

The United States needs to get with the program to protect the weakest among us from the most savage.  It is not doing a very good job so far. 

You said it Alicen, and very well. Life without any possibility of parole is my own preference for the monsters that prey on children. Once caught and convicted they should never again see the light of day among civilized people.

 Sam - You're doubtlessly much kinder than I.  Life imprisonment for those people should be in general population, and it is a matter of supreme indifference to me how long "life" imprisonment for them may be. 

You missed my point. It doesn't matter what your personal opinion on the matter of "cruel and unusual" is, what matters is the opinion of the Supreme Court. At this time, they find it to be "cruel and unusual". Doesn't mean it will always be that way, but that is their current opinion. As much as it may pain you, that is the reality. You'll just have to hope a future court sees it your way, but for now, the current decision stands, even if you don't like it. That's the way things work in this country.

Schwaine:  You're right.  But I don't hold out much hope for a wiser Court in the future.  Maybe a little hope, but not much.  This is probably the best that we can hope for at the present time, which is precious little. 

As long as capital punishment is an option in some states for some offenses, it seems to me that this particular crime cries out for the same sentence -- as so stated by Louisiana's Governor after the Supreme Court decided.  After all, it was the people of the state who made that sentence the law of their land.  States' rights, schtates' rights.  I know.