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.
Don't hold your breath. I am stunned at how little play the court decision is getting in the LameStream Press--though admittedly I don't watch them much anymore.
My theory is that the LameStream Press would have to openly acknowledge the LIBERALS on the court are the ones who delivered such a piece of crap ruling, and that the CONSERVATIVES were the ones standing up for property rights. Even my local news station, when they ran a story on it, emphasized the increased values of homes and DE-EMPHASIZED the perversion of law--and I don't even think they mentioned the names of the majority judges.
We can hope....
8mm
That is the kernal of the question. The true meanings of both 'public' and 'use' need to be understood way better than they are. For example, we use the term 'public' in two ways that are not particularly related. The word 'use' comes down to us from Roman law and is also found in the term 'justice'. These are hugely complicated in our minds and we don't communicate well at the best of times. Confusion is the order of the day.
Nice letter.
Any idea why are they bending over backwards giving Indians massive land for casino's. Two huge ones in CT tax free and, now they take personal property to UP THE TAX BASE. In battle now, in NY, The Hamptons on Long Island for more land for another casino.
Outstanding job.....thanks!!
WTG, CBB. I trust copies were sent to Stevens, Souter, Bader-Ginsberg, and Breyer? The standard political phrase, "They're all in bed together" applies here, although that particular visual is somewhat disgusting in this case.
Either that or Satan is lacing up his ice skates.
Well said, sir.
I called the White House comment line yesterday, figured out how to talk to a real live person, and said I wanted Supreme Court nominees to be chosen ONLY from those who would reverse BOTH Kelo AND McCain-Feingold. I encourage all to do the same.
Next: does anyone have the Supremes' snail mail address?
OH, yeah: The White House comment line is (202) 456-1111
Now that the Supreme Eminences have ruled from On High, there seems little standing in the way of turning all our homes into shopping malls and other handy revenue generators for politically back-scratching contractors and developers - even if we insist we pay our paltry taxes and we own it.
*smirk*
But if they can do that to we little people with our meager tax-generating properties and do so with little regard or restriction, just imagine what they can do to any property which generates NO taxes; churches, for example. A church usually pays no revenue to any body of Caesar in taxes and this is a long standing principle! Every single one of them in this country is now up for grabs for any tax-generating purpose - no matter how small - which local tin-pot despots anxious for more cash can imagine!
What makes anybody think from this day forward a bank will give any church in this country a mortgage based on the value of their property and buildings when they exist merely at the whim of any local governmental potentate who can condemn and confiscate them (and the bank's investment) at will?
The clear sailing for property rights is now over, and these aren't just newly murky waters we are dealing with here. As of Kelo v. New London they are shoal-ridden, bloody, shark-infested ones in which every honest citizen is a piece of attractive meat!
Appreciate it! And I'll salute you with a drink at my bar! Good Letter!
You forgot to ask him if his decision was written by one of his flunky clerks.
As almost any business can produce a study saying they will produce more tax revenue than a home owner, every home owner is at risk. So much for protecting individual rights and the little guy.
Hmmm...I wonder how much tax revenue comes from Kennedy's home...
The only possibility is that he would have a lawyer/friend find out that I am a card-carrying member of the Maryland Bar Association, and he would have a complaint filed against me, there. Of course, doing that would make Justice Kennedy look like even more of a horse's patoot than he already does. So I doubt that will occur.
John / Billybob
Okay... my question is what can be done about this decision? Doesn't it stand until another case is brought up that can flip the decision?
Another excellent piece, CB.
Impeach. Remove. Repeat as needed. If the faux-representatives in congress refuse to do so, vote them out. If the elections are rigged, and the people are left with no recourse, remove those responsible by other means - that's why the second amendment is there.
The constitution has remedies and methods for getting rid of lawless judges like Kennedy. He should be impeached on charges of treason (betraying his oath of office) and removed. Ditto for Ginsburg, Breyer, Stephens, Souter, and O'Connor. These six amoral, evil individuals are a far greater threat to the continued existence of this nation than Osama bin Laden could ever dream of being.
Kennedy is one of the biggest hypocrites around. What gall, lecturing everyone on the sanctity of the rule of law while he and his four unindicted co-conspirators ignore the rule of law expressed by the U.S. Constitution.
Regrettably, fixing the problem we have with the SCOTUS is in the hands of a "new tone in Washington"/"compassionate conservatism" GOP which conservatives are deserting in droves as it becomes the Big Tent party peopled only by RINOs/Liberals/Moderates.
Based on the this latest ruling I will have to say that the 10 Commandments are gone for good.
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.