Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An Open Letter to Justice Kennedy
Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 24 June, 2005 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: courts; criticism; deathpenalty; eminentdomain; floridabar; houses; judicialindependence; justicekennedy; kelo; newlondon; publoicuse; resignation; takings; tyranny; usconstitution; voltaire
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-122 next last
I know that Freepers consider this take-your-house decision to be represensible. I thought I ought to say something about it. The Supreme Court cannot disbar me for these remarks, because I resigned from their Bar a year ago. (See, "To the Supreme Court: I Quit.")

I believe y'all will appreciate this.

1 posted on 06/25/2005 9:50:58 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

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.


2 posted on 06/25/2005 9:56:13 AM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
A hell of an essay/letter, John!

Multiple WTG!

3 posted on 06/25/2005 9:56:56 AM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Well said, John.


4 posted on 06/25/2005 9:58:19 AM PDT by Gabz (My give-a-damn is busted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Well said. One lawyer I can respect. Of the lawyers I have met, about 40% qualify as decent, ethical people. You seem to fit in that category. The other 60% include about 20% (of gross, no pun intended) who are decent, but caught up in the greed aspect of law. The other 40% are reprehensible, unethical, greedy pieces of.... well you know.
5 posted on 06/25/2005 9:59:30 AM PDT by A.B.Normal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Right on, congersman!

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.

6 posted on 06/25/2005 9:59:34 AM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
John Armor is an author and civil rights attorney who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina

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.

7 posted on 06/25/2005 10:00:28 AM PDT by feedback doctor (If you won't love the least of people, then you can't love any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marty60
a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE actually is begging your local lawyer to EXPLAIN HIS decision.

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.

8 posted on 06/25/2005 10:00:31 AM PDT by Bahbah (Something wicked this way comes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Excellent, I hope you mail it to Kennedy and colleagues.


9 posted on 06/25/2005 10:00:39 AM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
You and the other Justices in the majority, jumped up and down on the Constitution with track shoes

I gotta use this.

10 posted on 06/25/2005 10:02:01 AM PDT by MNnice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Well said, sir. Bump.


11 posted on 06/25/2005 10:02:14 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (This space intentionally blank) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Thank YOU!!

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.

12 posted on 06/25/2005 10:02:42 AM PDT by Ladysmith ((NRA) Wisconsin Hunter Shootings: If you want on/off the WI Hunters ping list, please let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

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.


13 posted on 06/25/2005 10:03:37 AM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
"Framers sought to protect “life, liberty, and property.”

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!

14 posted on 06/25/2005 10:04:20 AM PDT by yoe (Friends don't let Friends read the New York Times...........................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Its not the appointments that matter. Its the unchecked power of judicial review that has turned our courts into a political battleground. To eliminate political controversies over judicial nominations, the power to decide on the constitutionality of laws must go. If all judges can do is carry out the laws as written, the Republic will be the better off for it. Just my thoughts on how to fix our out of control judiciary.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
15 posted on 06/25/2005 10:05:11 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
I find it very curious that Kennedy thinks the gov't cannot intrude into anything that happens in a person's bedroom EVER, yet, the gov't can swipe a person's bedroom, and the house attached to it, and give it to someone else anytime it wants. Weird! Where's a guy supposed to go commit adultery and sodomy and violate below age-of-consent persons if the government steals his bedroom?

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."

16 posted on 06/25/2005 10:07:28 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marty60
I'm talking about HIS thought process. It is shockingly revealing.

I could not agree with you more.

17 posted on 06/25/2005 10:07:29 AM PDT by Bahbah (Something wicked this way comes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ladysmith

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.


18 posted on 06/25/2005 10:07:44 AM PDT by Paladin2 (Don't Tread on Me; Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Justice Stevens needs to be removed from office. In Gonzales v. Raich Justice Stevens effectivelly deleted the words" with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" from section 8 of article 1. In Kelo v. New London the words "for public use" have been deleted from amendment 5. It is simply UNACCEPTABLE for sections of the Constitution nullified. If the Justices are incapable of sticking to the text, the congress should refuse to allow them to continue on the bench. It's that simple. Either we have a Constitution or we do not. If they cannot abide their oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" they should not be allowed to serve.

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.

19 posted on 06/25/2005 10:08:04 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
BUMP'n it up!

and 'They' ain't done yet.

They will still rule on the 10 Commandments Suggestions before adjourning.

20 posted on 06/25/2005 10:09:05 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ...... The War on Terrorism is the ultimate 'faith-based' initiative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-122 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson