Kelo Court vs. 2010 Supremes: A Vast Improvement -- for now [vanity]

During 0-bama's State of Disunion, he used his congress-rats to help gang up on the Supreme Court. Alito was flailed for mouthing "not true". It was an ugly day for us conservatives, and it was also a confusing day for at least one former leftist, a friend of mine who had turned from being a Hillary supporter to a Ron Paul supporter. [A way yet to go, I admit -- but excellent headway for a 2nd generation yellow-dog.]

But 0 did manage to confuse him. Our 'evil' supreme court now schemes to "allow funnelling of foreign money". He's now completely turned off by politics in general. So here was part of an email I sent to help clear the confusion. I first turn to a truly evil court back in 2005 ...

Clarence Thomas cleared up any Kelo confusion with such ease, he probably felt like he was scolding naughty school kids. He did little more than quote the Constitution to expose the ludicrous injustice, with emphasis of a few words in the Fifth Amendment:

[No person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process, of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Now, let's look at how the justices voted on the ruling Obama rose a stink about:

Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit 501 organization, sought to run television commercials promoting its film Hillary: The Movie, a documentary critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, and to show the movie on DirecTV. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA)(AKA McCain-Feingold), 2 U.S.C. § 441b, prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make an "electioneering communication" or for "independent expenditures," defined as speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate and that is made independently of a candidate's campaign.

[To put it bluntly -- Dick Morris has the goods on Hillary and was barred from running a commercial/movie campaign about her. People were blocked from being informed about a presidential candidate in the name of "campaign finance reform".]

Dissenting opinion -- 'Just-us' Stevens -- along with 'Just-us' Ginsburg, 'Just-us' Breyer, and 'Just-us' Sotomayor.

Stevens -- a Stinking Tyrant In Robes who ruled against property rights. [STIR w RAPR]

Sotomayor -- an incompetent who was recently appointed by Obama against GOP objections.

Kennedy -- the only Kelo 'just-us' to agree with the majority in the court on this ruling.

So most who ruled against property rights also ruled against what I believe to be free speech. That makes perfect sense.

LAMBRO: Roberts For The Defense [B0’s swipe at the Free Speech Ruling During State of Disunion]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2470029/posts
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/14/roberts-for-the-defense/

[During State of Disunion] ....

But Mr. Obama went further in his remarks on the case to milk every political drop he could from the issue. The ruling, he said, “will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections” (a point Mr. Gibbs noticeably chose not to repeat).

[When Alito mouthed: “Not true.”] ... because it isn’t. In fact, the court stated in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that it did not deal with election spending by foreign corporations because the law the justices overturned did not differentiate between U.S. and foreign companies.

Indeed, The Washington Post’s Supreme Court reporter, Robert Barnes, further pointed out, “There are restrictions on foreign participation in U.S. elections that were not part of this case,” facts that the president’s speechwriters should have known or, maybe, just chose to leave out.

The president was treading on thin ice when he attacked the court’s freedom-of-speech decision by saying, “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests.” What part of the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech” doesn’t he understand?

Mr. Obama and his well-connected corporate bundlers, who raised more money for him than anyone else in U.S. history, know a thing or two about opening the floodgates of campaign money. They raked in three-fourths of a billion dollars for his 2008 presidential campaign. Much of it came from those same special interests he was talking about.

Like wealthy trial lawyers who win huge sums of money from medical liability lawsuits. The checks they collected for his campaign were worth every million they gave him. His health care reform plan dutifully left out any mention of tort reform to rein in jury awards that have sent medical costs through the roof.

Meantime, we may not be seeing any justices at Mr. Obama’s future State of the Union addresses - or at least not the ones whose votes displease him. “To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I’m not sure why we’re there,” Justice Roberts said.

Donald Lambro is a nationally syndicated columnist.

This is Clarence Thomas’s dissent on Kelo:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1429187/posts

[Just a tiny exerpt — full dissent in address]

I cannot agree. If such “economic development” takings are for a “public use,” any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O’Connor powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 1—2, 8—13. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court’s error runs deeper than this. Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government’s eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause’s original meaning, and I would reconsider them.

The Fifth Amendment provides:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, *** OR PROPERTY ***, without due process, of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” (Emphasis added.)

Saddleback Debate:

When asked which Supreme Court justices he would not have nominated, Obama said — Clarence Thomas.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2505001/posts?page=3#3

President 0 next tried to slime the Supremes over Citizens United.

What about adding Gun Rights to the mix?

I went to http://www.ontheissues.org

- - - - -

John Paul Stevens [Kelo Justice who blocked free speech for Citizens United]

For gun control: U.S. v. Lopez (1995).

- - - - -

Stephen Breyer [Kelo Justice who blocked free speech for Citizens United]

For gun control: WROTE dissent in U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

- - - - -

Ruth Bader Ginsburg [Kelo Justice who blocked free speech for Citizens United]

For gun control: U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

[Also former A.C.L.U. bigshot — a heavyweight of judicial tyranny.]

- - - - -

Batting a thousand here: Stevens, GINSBURG, and Breyer — the Three Musketeers of Tyranny.

Congress cannot INFRINGE the right to bear arms. It’s in black and white in the U.S. Constitution. Powers not enumerated to congress are under the jurisdiction of STATES.

- - - - -

What about the Joker in the Deck? Justice Kennedy?

Anthony Kennedy on Gun Control

Supreme Court Justice (nominated by Pres. Reagan 1988)

No stance on record. [figures]

- - - - -

David Souter [Kelo Tyrant, Retired]

Gun Control Joker in Deck

Against gun control: Caron v. US, 97-6270

... and ...

For gun control: U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

- - - - -

Kelo Dissenters

- - - - -

Antonin Scalia [Stood up for Property Rights in Kelo]

For Gun Rights — Caron v. US, 97-6270

- - - - -

Clarence Thomas [Stood up for Property Rights in Kelo]

For Gun Rights — Caron v. US, 97-6270

- - - - -

William Rehnquist [Stood up for Property Rights in Kelo]

— no gun right stance on record [at least in this site I’m researching]

- - - - -

Sandra Day O’Connor [Stood up for Property Rights in Kelo]

— no gun right stance on record [at least in this site I’m researching]

- - - - -

So the Kelo Dissent reg. Gun Rights ... two for gun rights and two with ‘no stance’.

- - - - -

Conclusion to be Drawn from Kelo, Citizens United, and Gun Rights —

Clarence Thomas is the only Supreme Court Justice on the bench with a perfect record on all three. And he’s the one with a wife going to tea parties. And he is the justice Obama hates most.

Newcomers to the Bench and Gun Control

Samuel Alito (nominated by Pres. George W. Bush 2005)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/Samuel_Alito_Gun_Control.htm
Congress has no authority to curb the sale of machine guns

In a controversial dissent in a 1996 case involving the sale and possession of machine guns, Alito argued that Congress had no authority to curb the sale - even of fully automatic machine guns - if they were not specifically involved in interstate commerce.

Source: The Dallas Morning News Oct 31, 2005

- - - - -

John Roberts (nominated by Pres. George W. Bush 2005)

[Not much to go on yet.]

Unions have right to negotiate where firearms are stored

Roberts concurred: “I join the court’s opinion on the understanding that the Authority [can determine unilaterally if] security at a particular location is adequate.

Source: FindLaw case 04-1157, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit Apr 15, 2005

- - - - - -

Sonia Sotomayor — Obama’s first Supreme

Rabid gun grabbing tyrant [but her wording is sneaky]
http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/Sonia_Sotomayor_Gun_Control.htm

[No wonder she was opposed to free speech for Citizens United.]

- - - - - -

Future Obama Justices? Here’s Obama’s record on gun control:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm

Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities—but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

[And never forget the Bitter Clinger speech]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.