Summary

Portrait of William Rehnquist William Rehnquist Furman v. Georgia — Dissenting Opinion

The Framers of the Constitution would doubtless have agreed with the great English political philosopher John Stuart Mill when he observed:
The disposition of mankind, whether as rulers or as fellow-citizens, to impose their own opinions and inclinations as a rule of conduct on others, is so energetically supported by some of the best and by some of the worst feelings incident to human nature, that it is hardly ever kept under restraint by anything but want of power.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William Rehnquist William Rehnquist Furman v. Georgia — Dissenting Opinion

Human error there is bound to be, judges being men and women, and men and women being what they are. But an error in mistakenly sustaining the constitutionality of a particular enactment, while wrongfully depriving the individual of a right secured to him by the Constitution, nonetheless does so by simply letting stand a duly enacted law of a democratically chosen legislative body.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William Rehnquist William Rehnquist Furman v. Georgia — Dissenting Opinion

While overreaching by the Legislative and Executive Branches may result in the sacrifice of individual protections that the Constitution was designed to secure against action of the State, judicial overreaching may result in sacrifice of the equally important right of the people to govern themselves. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were "never intended to destroy the States' power to govern themselves."
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature