Child Death Penalty, Roper and Originalism, v. 2.1

Upon further review, my opinion on this case has evolved, not unlike the term unusual:

The Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the Constitution. It has interpreted this 8th Amendment clause like this: "the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments also recognizes the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."" The vagueness of the terms "Cruel and Unusual" themselves necessitate that the Court interpret their meaning, and there is no generally accepted meaning for these terms that would have obviously been more logical. Therefore this case is not changing the term from its meaning, but is ruling in keeping with it. I think you can argue fairly that the evolving standards of decency have not met this standard (though I would disagree) but if those standards have evolved, the Court is in keeping with previous decisions with this case.

Since it is these specific terms in the Eighth Amendment that evolve, the Court is not opening the door to evolving other portions of the Constitution. I think Scalia would have to punt on both the Court's role of interpretation and the role of Stare Decisis to claim that the Court is not within its bounds to make this decision.