Replies

One of the principle tenets of Socialism is the expansion of government power and the crushing of all opposition to that expansion. The recent attack on the Fifth Amendment's eminent domain provisions simply expands government power. Worst of all, WE the American People fail to understand that this "edict" was created out of thin air by arrogant, liberal socialist LAWYERS who wear black robes. Let us look a little closer at the basic purpose of the decision and what it means. In its simplest form, if a governmental agency can find a purpose for YOUR property that increases tax rolls or rates your property is fair game. And what better target than tax-exempt churches. Many of them occupy prime development real estate and have small congregations that could not fend off attacks by government. An anti-American socialist’s dream--, completely unfettered power to attack religion brought to us by arrogant black robed lawyers.

Since it looks like O'Connor is retiring, I called the President's White House Comment line at(202) 456-1111, managed to get a hold of a real live person, and said,

If the President REALLY DOES sincerely believe in what he calls "The Ownership Society," then he darn well better nominate a Supreme Court justice who will STAND UP FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS and vote to OVERTURN KELO!"
PLEASE DO THE SAME.

Just to respond to the rhetorical question asked at the end of that article posted on the NoDNC.com site.

The question posed was....."Can someone please tell me why again the Democratic Party is opposed to more conservative judges in the Federal Courts?"

The answer is contained in the writings of Zell Miller and comments of an assortment of political pundits. The Democratic Party is now in total disarray! They lost the most recent attempt to unseat the President whom they accuse of having stolen their victory the first time around. They see in the high court their one saving grace. Can they retain control, numerically, with those liberal activist judges who will do their bidding to rewrite the Constitution to their liking. That is the net result of their desires.

They are, as the modern Democratic Party has been for some time now, comfortably nestled down in the status of the "VICTIM". Sound familiar? It has been their collective manner of expression for a party adrift with no values to build upon. Their method of expression is WHINING. To supplement WHINING they also love to DEMONIZE others. 'The fault, Dear Demon-crats, is not in the stars, but in YOURSELVES that you are underlings'. For instance take their choice of DNC Chair. They go with Howard Dean to "energize the base". So Dean goes out and, using the tactics I've noted in CAPITAL LETTERS spouts out all manner of derisive remarks, which he knows will get him criticism. He is energizing the 18 to 25 yr. old sponge-headed idealists who failed to turn out and vote last time. Great strategy Howie! Now, because of some of his rants he has increased the embarrassment that many traditional middle-of-the-road Democrats feel and energized this base to go Independent or Republican next time. My kind of "energizing the base" Howie-boy! Do NOT minimize the effect that Zell Miller had on this left-leaning bunch, who have gained control, by his speech at the Republican convention. Many Democrats in the 50+ age group felt the heat of being too close to the unpatriotic flame of the Democratic left. Do you think that many Democratic vets sitting and listening to John Fraud Kerry, with all the baggage he brought, open up with "John Kerry reporting for duty" and saluting just maybe felt their collective skins crawl and little shivers run up their spines?

The control of the USSC is the be all and end all for them. By corrupting the obligation and constitutional duties of the high court they can do what they have NOT been able to do at the ballot box and in the marketplace of ideas. Just listen to the remarks of Kennedy, Pelosi, Durbin, et al on Bush's blaspheny of linking the 9-11 tragedy to the war on terror. They're on the same old merry-go-'round and don't know how to get off. They say 'Ha..ha! you didn't find any WMDs' and the Bush folks go back to square one with 'He made the only decision he could as President given the AVAILABLE INTELLIGENCE' and that begets 'but this and but that ad nauseum. Now they've sold out their soul to the devil, George Soros and his MoveOn.org, who actually said he'll set the Democratic agenda. So now all the whores are bitchin' 'cause there's a new madam in charge of the house and she's a he!

In the words of the late Jimmy Durante...."What a revoltin' developement this is". Goodnight Mrs. Callabash, wherever you are.

Good post. Thanks for your post. Bump.

As a result of outrage over Kelo vs. New London, Ct., it is great to see Americans so aware of, & energized in defense of, private property rights by addressing threats, this terrible precedent (Kelo v. New London), and becoming aware of the downside of activist Judges. I have been concerned with both of these related issues for about a decade. I even had brief, separate, conversational encounters with two of the "good" Justices (Scalia & Thomas) in the Kelo case about 6 or 7 years ago re: "The Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment designed to protect private property from arbitrary seizures, but providing for Eminent Domain for certain "public use" (NOT "public purpose") . It was clear they were anxious to see some good cases walk toward them. I doubt if they would have predicted the bizarre outcome in Kelo, though.

For those of us who are deeply concerned with protection of Private Property from improper application of Eminent Domain in contravention of the Original Intent of the Founders in the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, I am registering a warning or a concern:

I think AG (& potential USSC Nominee) Alberto Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))

and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.

As some have frequently observed, he certainly believes in a "Living Constitution" and is NOT a strict constructionist or an Originalist, but rather tends toward the Activist side, per National Review Online and others.

He has been sharply critical of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme Ct. decisions when they were both on that Ct. as Justices, and he has been quoted as being sharply criticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, including being quoted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.