of the court, under the guise of judicial restraint, reverses on a motion for reconsideration of our decision in State v. Aalim, 150 Ohio St.3d 463, 2016-Ohio-8278, 83 N.E.3d 862 (“Aalim I”). But make no mistake: the court’s decision approves the arbitrary deprivation of access to the juvenile system and what should be the sine qua non of juvenile-transfer hearings—the determination whether the juvenile is amenable to rehabilitation. The majority does so by affording blind deference to the legislature, ignoring the requirements of due process and fairness, and artificially constraining the United States Supreme Court’s commands that we must consider juvenile offenders differently than adult offenders, see Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 470, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) (<HOLDING>); J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261, 265,
holding that life without parole sentences for nonhomicide offenses violates the eighth amendment holding that the eighth amendment forbids life without the possibility of parole for a juvenile who commits a nonhomicide offense holding that sentences imposing mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on individuals who committed their crimes when under the age of 18 violates the eighth amendment to the united states constitution holding that mandatory life imprisonment without parole for those under the age of eighteen at the time of their crimes violates eighth amendment holding that the execution of individuals who were under 18 years of age at the time they committed capital crimes violates the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the united states constitution