I'm surprised that you, as a libertarian, had a problem with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn the Connecticut Supreme Court decision, which means that the refused to interject the federal govenrment in a state matter. You may have a problem with the state court, but the federal court did what the Constitution and the 10th Amendment said that they should do; leave a state matter in the state where it belongs.
As for Scott v Sanford, I didn't agree with Taney's tortured logic denying citizenship to blacks or safeguarding slavery expansion. I may not have agreed with it, but I don't deny that it was a valid ruling by the court. Fortunately for us all it was negated by the 13th and 14th Amendments.
I'm sure the bureaucracy thanks their lucky stars for 'conservatives' who can turn their back on plain English--otherwise, we wouldn't have a federal Leviathan.
If it's that easy then why do we need a Supreme Court to begin with? What, in your opinion, is its function and purpose?
Admittedly, I was a bit torn on the issue for the reason you state. However, either the SCOTUS determines Constitutional protections are incorporated to the states, or not. If they are incorporating some, all should be. And if any right is clear and easy to historically interpret, it is the right to own property and not give it up to others without the compensation of your choice. Government intervention to take property away from some to give to other private parties is reminiscent of aristocracy.
"As for Scott v Sanford, I didn't agree with Taney's tortured logic denying citizenship to blacks or safeguarding slavery expansion. I may not have agreed with it, but I don't deny that it was a valid ruling by the court. Fortunately for us all it was negated by the 13th and 14th Amendments."
I didn't agree with Taney's odd, twisting ruling either--but I don't think it was all that fortunate it was superseded that way. The equal protection clause has been a dream for those bent on federal expansion. But whatever floats your boat.
And I notice you had not thing one to say about Hamdan.
"If it's that easy then why do we need a Supreme Court to begin with? What, in your opinion, is its function and purpose?"
I certainly don't believe it was intended to be what it is. Otherwise why would Marbury be so important? I think the American SCOTUS was initially intended to fill the role of the Law Lords in Britain, and has since been able to turn itself into an oligarchy. Its current function and purpose is obvious, but I think its intended purpose was merely to interpret ambiguities between statute and Constitution, ambiguities that the Congress could have overcome with clarifying legislation as Parliament may in England. Now, unfortunately, SCOTUS 'interprets' the Constitution, which is clearly beyond the Founders' intention of having the People rule and Congress be the preeminent branch. As Jefferson noted,