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 thought Congress Billy Bob's letter was excellent, so this joke certainly does not refer to him. The talk about the Constitution and the Ten Commandments brought this to mind:
COWS
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that our government can track a cow born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington. And they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give them each a cow.
CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart Guys, it's worked for over 200 years and we're not using it anymore.
COMMANDMENTS
Want to know the real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse? You cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians! It creates a hostile working environment.
Billybob
What are our options as citizens other than armed resistance to this tyranny.
I'm sure there are alot of people who want to know.
Calling Congressmen and Senators so often gets us nowhere, but is this the only option we have?
Cows, Constitution and Commandments, I hope I don¡t have to choose which one I like the most, they are all good.
I do like the one about the cows and have to ask the same question. Then again I remember that on one day LEO all over the country rounded up 10,000 criminals. What did they do for the other 364 days?
Cows, Constitution and Commandments, I hope I don¡t have to choose which one I like the most, they are all good.
I do like the one about the cows and have to ask the same question. Then again I remember that on one day LEO all over the country rounded up 10,000 criminals. What did they do for the other 364 days?
Should that read "is using" or, perhaps, drop the "is" altogether?
Go get 'em tiger! Very well put :-D
If beloved Freeper RJayneJ were still with us, she'd make this the Quote of the Day.
This is what I found this morning -- can't remember where I found it though --
The Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street, NE
Washington DC 20543
Thank you for your excellent post.
I've visited your website, but I can't find a copy of, "To the Supreme Court: I Quit"...where can I find a copy? I would love to read it! Thanks.
"Ya drink with me, ya drink for free."
That goes for me, too, whether in my home or aboard the MV Delta Dittos.
Thanks!
As Thomas Jefferson observed, the remedy of impeachment is "a scare-crow" against judges who exceed their authority.
Since it is quite apparent that the Senate (who won't even cull its own treasonous and seditious members) will not impeach judges who violate the constitutional requirements laid upon them, then it is time to impose a limit on the time-in-office of these judges. Ten years and/or 70.
As usual, I have no printable comments to add to your work - save that I agree with your points, and sadly predict non-compliance with your conclusion.
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.