Posted on 06/25/2005 9:50:56 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Dear Justice Kennedy,
I agree with what you wrote, this week. No, I don’t mean your part in the decision that any government can take anybody’s house, any time. We’ll get back to that reprehensible case.
No, I agree with your speech to the Florida Bar Association last Friday. Most folks don’t pay much attention to Justices’ speeches on the rubber chicken circuit. I do.
As usual, the Associated Press title was misleading. It said, “Lawyers Must Defend Judiciary from Attacks.” What you actually said was, “When judges are attacked unfairly, it’s proper for the bar over the course of time, in a professional and elegant way, to explain to the public the meaning of the rule of law.” The key is that pesky word, “unfairly.”
I agree with what you actually said. And, I’m sure you agree with me that it is the obligation of a member of the bar – any bar – to attack a judge when he/she has it coming. So, I am about to attack you nine ways from Sunday.
In your Florida remarks, you said criticism of court decisions is fair game, but it’s “worrisome” when the criticism is focused on the judiciary, especially on individual judges. You claim individual attacks “amount to a real threat ... to judicial independence.”
Okay, here’s a hypothetical. What if a particular Justice is uses his/her independence to violate the Constitution? What if that violates his/her oath of office as a Justice? What if the problem is not just one case, but the entire approach that you (excuse me, the hypothetical Justice) takes to judging any case?
Before you urge the organized bar to circle the wagons and protect you from attack, perhaps you should consider Kelo v. New London, decided 23 June, 2005. A bunch of laymen are reading this over my shoulder, so for them I describe the case, and your Concurrence in it. The Court decided, in a sharply divided 5-4 decision, that the City of New London could use eminent domain to take people’s homes, and turn that property over to a private developer who would build hotels, shops and such.
The Constitution’s Takings Clause says that governments shall have power to take private property “for public use” and with “due compensation.” But was this a public use? You agreed with the majority that seeking greater tax revenues made this a public purpose. Well, hellooo, that means anyone can lose their house to any purpose from a high-rise condo to a chicken-rendering plant and it’s all legal.
You filed a Concurrence suggesting the decision wasn’t as bad as it looked because the courts could refuse to uphold the taking if there was a “clear showing” it was “intended to favor a particular private party.” Big darn deal. Fraud and collusion were always illegal.
Bottom line, if you paid attention to Constitutional Law in school, you know the Framers sought to protect “life, liberty, and property.” You know the laws, including the Constitution, protect those three aspects of American life. You also know the Constitution refers to “public purposes,” like docks, navy yards, public buildings, you get the idea.
So, I conclude you deliberately violated the Constitution in this case. And, this is not the first time that you (plus four colleagues) have done that to get a result different than the Constitution requires. You’ve also done that in reverse, striking as unconstitutional a state law even your own Court found constitutional just 16 years ago.
I refer to the Missouri death penalty case of 1 May. I won’t trouble you with the details because you delivered the Opinion in that. You and the other Justices in the majority, jumped up and down on the Constitution with track shoes, in that case.
So, in response to your urging to members of the bar to “explain the rule of law,” I offer this: As long as there is a working majority of Justices on the Supreme Court who believe the law should be whatever they say, there will be no predictable rule of law in the United States. Until Justices who do not honor their oaths of office, or the Constitution, it will be true, paraphrasing Voltaire (1764), “No man’s life, liberty or property is safe as long as the Supreme Court is in session.”
The nation, the Constitution, and the rule of law are all in danger as long as you, others who think like you, remain on the Court. If you mean what you said to the Florida Bar, you will resign from the Supreme Court, tomorrow at noon.
I hope you find this defense of the rule of law to be elegant. Write when you get work.
Quasi-respectfully Submitted,
John C. Armor, Esq.
About the Author: John Armor is an author and civil rights attorney who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina.
I believe y'all will appreciate this.
Waht really gets me is that a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE actually is begging your local lawyer to EXPLAIN HIS decision. IF he is admitting that he can't write a defensible decision, then he needs to immediately RESIGN, giving the reason of SHEER INCOMPETENCE.
Multiple WTG!
Well said, John.
There are five "justices" on the USSC who should be placed under arrest for betraying the public's trust, violation of oath of office, and malfeasance.
I haven't seen that other 'civil liberty' group, the aclu, jump to the defense of those who will surely be abused by this unconstitutional decision.
Billybob, that was a great letter.
I'll be happy to explain it to anyone who asks, and even to those who don't. I will be honored to employ Congressman Billybob's excellent explanation in that effort. This decision violates the Constitution in the clearest way possible. It needs to be reversed post haste.
Excellent, I hope you mail it to Kennedy and colleagues.
I gotta use this.
Well said, sir. Bump.
I just posted that we need to put HUGE pressure on the SCOTUS to reverse their decision here. Get right back to the source of all this and correct it, rather than expecting the states to bandaid this gaping wound.
I'm not talking about normal people that went into shock at this outrage. I'm talking about HIS thought process. It is shockingly revealing.
For the "public good" sounds more like "for the good of the developer."
Congressman B.B., you've hit the Kennedy nerve where it hurts - I hope!
Understanding Constitutional Law, is just as important as honoring an oath of office. The Justices who voted to trash the 5th Amendment are in flagrant violation of both! Impeach them!
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I also find it strange that property is more protected from developers who would steal it IF endangered species -- BUGS -- dwell on the land than if humans do. Tell those property owners who are losing their land to go find an endangered species and get it to set-up housekeeping on their property. Then the developers won't want the land and the greedy gov't will have to look elsewhere for revenue.
The other think those property owners need to realize is that this is happening because of public dependency on government. If we-the-people weren't so dependent on gov't these days, gov't wouldn't need so stinking much "revenue."
I could not agree with you more.
Impeachment proceedings would be a good way to start. This case is also a gift to putting down any 'Rat objections to a more conservative bent of any SCOTUS nominations. I don't think the Senate 'Rats are going to like any discussion of this case given the positions of "their" SC justices.
Article. III. Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour; Call or right your congremen and senators today.
and 'They' ain't done yet.
They will still rule on the 10 Commandments Suggestions before adjourning.
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.