RUTHFULLY YOURS

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas used a footnote in a murder case to call out his liberal colleagues’ apparent double standard for minors, questioning why teenagers should have an absolute right to abortion but can’t be held fully responsible for homicide.

“When addressing juvenile murderers, this Court has stated that ‘children are different’ and that courts must consider ‘a child’s lesser culpability,” Thomas said in the footnotes of his opinion in Jones v. Mississippi. “And yet, when assessing the Court-created right of an individual of the same age to seek an abortion, Members of this Court take pains to emphasize a ‘young woman’s right to choose.’”

“It is curious how this Court’s view of the maturity of minors ebbs and flows depending on the issue,” Thomas continued.

Thomas cited multiple cases in which justices argued that minors were mature enough to be able to decide whether or not to get an abortion, a standard they suddenly abandon when assessing their culpability for violent crimes.

One such ruling from nine years ago held that life sentences for juveniles convicted of homicide were in violation of the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, reasoning that such mandatory sentences failed to take into account a minor’s immaturity at the time the crime was committed.

That ruling came up again in the case of Brett Jones, a Mississippi man who was 15 years old when he used a knife to kill his grandfather during an argument.

In a 6-3 ruling Thursday, the court declined to impose new restrictions on sentencing minors to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Jones argued that the previous ruling required courts to assess whether a minor offender was “permanently incorrigible,” but the 6-3 decision found that such a requirement was unnecessary.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, dissented, arguing the state should be required to assess if minor offenders have demonstrated the maturity and the ability to rehabilitate themselves.

“The question is whether the state, at some point, must consider whether a juvenile offender has demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation sufficient to merit a chance at life beyond the prison in which he has grown up. For most, the answer is yes,” Sotomayor wrote.