Liberalism bulldozes over society's little platoons (Supreme Court on Property Rights)

Houston Chronicle ^ | June 23, 2005 | GEORGE F. WILL

[bgsugar]

The country is bracing for a bruising battle over filling a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy, a battle in which conservatives will praise "judicial restraint" and "deference" to popularly elected branches of government and liberals will praise judicial activism in defense of individual rights. But consider what the court did Thursday.

[bgsugar]

This ruling opens the door for unscrupulous local officials to steal land from property owners. States need to quickly enact laws to prevent the abuse of local power.

[marylandrepub1]

Hey, maybe we lost the constitutional right to own property but we have a new constitional protection to replace it (per Clinton nominees): Homosexual Sodomy. Thanks Sen Hatch for working with Clinton on Breyer and Ginsberg confirmations , real moderates!

[Gritty]

Let the wholesale thievery by public officials and their contributing buddies begin!

[mountn man]

Whats stopping them now, from taking your land based upon political beliefs, if they don't like your political beliefs, they'll make up some thing about it being better for the people, and take your land.

Hey sounds like Russia almost 100 years ago.

[oblomov]

The Planster's Vision


Cut down that timber! Bells, too many and strong,
Pouring their music through the branches bare,
From moon-white church-towers down the windy air
Have pealed the centuries out with Evensong.
Remove those cottages, a huddled throng!
Too many babies have been born in there,
Too many coffins, bumping down the stair,
Carried the old their garden paths along.

I have a Vision of The Future, chum,
The workers' flats in fields of soya beans
Tower up like silver pencils, score on score
And Surging Millions hear the Challenge come
From microphones in communal canteens
"No Right! No Wrong! All's perfect, evermore."


--Sir John Betjeman

[avg_freeper]

"Most conservatives hoped that, in the most important case the court would decide this term, judicial activism would put a leash on popularly elected local governments and would pull courts more deeply into American governance in order to protect the rights of individuals. On Thursday, conservatives were disappointed."

What the,...! What conservative thought this?????

"Conservatives should be reminded to be careful what they wish for. Their often-reflexive rhetoric praises "judicial restraint" and deference to — it sometimes seems — almost unleashable powers of the elected branches of governments. However, in the debate about the proper role of the judiciary in American democracy, conservatives who dogmatically preach a populist creed of deference to majoritarianism will thereby abandon, or at least radically restrict, the judiciary's indispensable role in limiting government."

So let me get this straight George, you crack smoking harlot.

1. It was the conservative desire for strict adherence to the Constitution that caused the Constitution to be dismissed!

2. And our only hope is to join the liberals and elect more "judicial activists"!!!!!

So it's the conservatives fault!

[AntiGuv]

This is actually a point I've made often before. The emphasis on "judicial restraint" and "activist judges" is ignorant and short-sighted. What we should want is "strict constructionists" and "original intent" jurists - who unreservedly and actively enforce a strict interpretation of original intent.

But, the sound bytes are neater for serving to the ignorant masses when it's in the form of "judicial activist" or whatever..

[Susannah]

Even if states pass laws, in attempts to protect property owners, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision will still be the ultimate authority until the ruling is overturned.

For example, if a state legislature passed a law to ban abortions...the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling would overcome it.

Some democrats are blaming the eminent domain ruling on republicans based on the presidents who were in charge when the supreme court judges made it to the bench.

[marylandrepub1]

"The emphasis on "judicial restraint" and "activist judges" is ignorant and short-sighted"


Scalia has given some great lectures on this. Unfortunately NY Sen Schumer and democrats use the terms 'restraint', 'activist' and 'defending the constitution' to attack Bush judges, and unlike us, most people do not follow these decisions.

[AntiGuv]

Exactly, that's the problem. It can be turned right around and leveled at conservatives just as easily as at liberals - if not more easily once the liberal policies have been implemented. The whole concept suggests that the judicial branch should be nothing but a rubber stamp on whatever the legislature or the president wants to do. Over the long run, that supports big government liberal policies and not limited government conservative policies.

It is conservatives ceding the battle before it's even joined. The liberals just shrug it off and pass rulings like Roe v Wade and then wait a few years and now suddenly it's activist to overturn it, and it becomes the conservatives painted as the extremists, when it was the liberals that were distorting the constitution all along. You can't roll back socialism without activism!

[Bar-Face]

That is exactly what will be happening very shortly.
This must not stand!!!!

[kjenerette]

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter(1) or to abolish(2) it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

- excerpt from The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

Note1: The 1st Amendment provides the means to ALTER the Government
Note2: The 2nd Amendment provides the means to ABOLISH the Government �

[headsonpikes]

Book-readers, such as yourself, will be the first people rounded up by the Government in defense of the gains of American democracy.

Hide your books!

And your eye-glasses - they're a dead giveaway!

[RedMonqey]

"I wonder how long it will be before a home owner barricades himself in a house and starts shooting at the construction workers and the cops. Or maybe whole city councils get shot up during a meeting."

Remember the guy who built his own armoured tank out of a bulldozer and proceeded to demolish half the town..I wonder if he left blueprints of his "tank"

[jonascord]

And also remember how quick everyone was to condemn him. This Karma thing sucks, doesn't it?