The Supreme Court has ruled to let two judges who had been sentenced to life in prison without parole for murder and other crimes continue to preside over a controversial case, with the court’s liberal justices unanimously ruling in favor of granting their appeal.
Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had argued in March that the lower court’s sentence was “unconstitutional and unconstitutional on its face.”
The justices said the lower courts “applied a concept of justice” and that the case should be put on hold.
“The term ‘unconstitutional’ does not mean the same as ‘not constitutionally correct,'” Ginsburg wrote.
“It means a different concept of fairness.”
But Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent.
“In a democracy, all men are created equal, and we are entitled to be able to judge each other on the basis of our merits,” he wrote.
Kennedy said that the sentence was based on “the notion that some men are more prone to violence than others.”
In a rare moment of unity, Justice Ruth Breyer said that her “friends in the bench” were united in their view that the crime in question was “a serious and brutal act” and was “particularly atrocious in its brutality and its evil.”
“The Court’s unanimous decision today affirms our right to make our own judgments about what is cruel, inhuman, and degrading,” she said.
“But this decision also affirms that it is our duty to apply that judgment to those who committed the crime and to those we are charged with upholding as well.”
The court’s decision to allow the two to presidencies comes after a year of intense political turmoil and a presidential race that has divided the country along party lines.
On the Democratic side, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is facing off against former Maryland Gov.
Martin O’Malley, a former Democratic presidential candidate and former mayor of Baltimore.
On Monday, Republican Donald Trump won a key battleground state, Florida, for the first time in his presidential campaign, handing the White House to a new president who has said he plans to use the court to overturn Roe v.
The ruling by the court was expected to have broad implications for how the court handles cases that deal with issues such as voting rights, voting rights and equal protection.
It comes as the justices’ Republican appointees are also weighing whether to hear cases that could lead to changes to the court rules that govern the presidential election process.
The court also heard arguments on Tuesday on whether to take up a case brought by the state of Texas that could force its governor to issue same-sex marriage licenses.
The case is the latest in a string of decisions that have been contested in court.