The Supreme Hypocrites

The Supreme Court ruled this week that Capital Punishment is a violation of the 8th amendment if it is extended to juveniles. In a 5-4 decision, a split down international socialist verse reasonable justices, the court ruled that government sanctioned killing is only acceptable between the ages of 18 and above.
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that we are the only nation that allowed this practice. His penchant for citing International norms and law is troubling and getting worse. Justice Kennedy should spend a bit more time understanding his own Constitution and the authority granted from the people through the document to the court. It is either his stupidity or naivety but either way he is miles off base on his decision-making.
Yet, besides the fact the majority has ignored our own Constitution on a regular basis the bigger problem with this latest decision is the pure hypocrisy of it. Either the death penalty is just or is not just, either it is legal or it is not. Age is irrelevant to the condition of it's practice, yet arbitrarily they found that 18 is a demarcation between just and unjust, legal and illegal.
I am an extreme opponent of the death penalty, but that withstanding, i find it rather simple to believe we can be so trival about it's application and use.
If it is just and legal, then it should follow that it too should be equally applied and used, not discriminately used applied and used. To put it more simply if we are going to say killing someone by caveat of the government sanction, we should be judicious and fair in it's use. Rather, by declaring it illegal to kill by government caveat a person who commits a crime that otherwise would qualify the sentence for a death penalty, simply because of age is ludicrous. It is arbitrary, it is wrong.
Justice Kennedy also pointed out, wrongly i might add, that we are the only country in the world that sanctions executions for juvenile crimes. What he should have said is we may be the only nation that sanctions the executions for crimes committed by juveniles, not a minor distinction (excuse the pun). Yet this man still serves on the highest court in the land, do you begin to see the problem.
First, he is charged with honoring and obeying our U.S. Constitution, not international norms or laws.
Second, the purpose of punishment in our system is not retribution, rather it is protection of society. As such, we require a fairness that is clear and present.
Thirdly, if justices show absurdity by being arbitrary it undermines our entire Constitutional government.
What it might require is a base knowledge of the US CONSTITUTION and perhaps a regular refresher course for those charged with "upholding" the document and all it stands for.
Ironically, as an opponent of the Death Penalty I find myself equally upset with the gross malfeasance expressly shown by the majority in this recent decision. I would, both logically and constitutionally, prefer that the majority ultimately finds the action of a death penalty to be Unconstitutional. It can be done on so many levels, it violates the founding principal of Liberty and the protection against "cruel" punishment, but not the least of which is the racial bias that is statistically present in the application of the policy.
Finally, our entire system will be eroded if the cadre of internationalists continues to set Constitutional precedent by virtue of a mere majority in numbers while having a gross disregard for our Constitution.