Posted on 06/26/2005 6:19:31 PM PDT by doctorhugo
Well friends! So you say you didn't get the significance of the congressional filibustering of the Bush judicial nominees ad nauseum by the Democratic minority. You say you wanted to understand it, but it was just too confusing so you took a pass on that issue.
Most recently the USSC (United States Supreme Court), that erudite and near-Godlike body that sets in motion the precepts by which our very culture and rule of law is built upon, has turned on the big spotlight so everyone can see and understand just what is going on.
If you'll bear with me I'll comment, as a private citizen (not a lawyer), on some crucial background on the issue that was before the Court. What is needed to be understood is that there is an existing established legal precedent, in this country, known as 'the law of eminent domain'*. It defines under what conditions a governmental legal entity (such as a town, city, village, etc.) may condemn private property, if it meets the test of being of greater overall benefit/necessity to the public use. Until the indicated case, the establish precedents applied to condemnation/seizure for the public use. The point at issue being the scope of the powers of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution as it applies to the state's power to confiscate land/property in the name of eminent domain (14th Amendment)and public usage*. This nightmarish decision establishes a NEW precedent involving property taken for "private use" and , quite literally; establishes conditions wherein the law caves in to private interests in the name of improved usage, profitability and a myriad of other morally bankrupt justifications for trampling on the rights of private citizens in the name of the Almighty $! This is NOT an exaggeration or hyperbole designed to inflame one's anger. It is a sorry FACT and the end result of the vote of THE GANG OF FIVE..., count 'em...1...2...3...4...5 of our vaunted Supreme Court Justices.
One might wonder..., Which of these "mean-spirited" justices voted in the affirmative for such a damning precedent? Well now. Let's just see. The four (4) dissenting votes were those staid and traditional strict constructionist interpreters of the Constitution named O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, who understand the strength of our Constituion is the flexibility and latitude of interpretation ceeded by the Founding Fathers to future generations of interpreters of the law. They understand that such trust begets an inherent obligation of r-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y to not transgress upon the well-being of the whole of society is an effort to accomodate some elements of said society. Is it not the least bit surprising that the Faith of Our Fathers has been corrupted by and prostituted in the name of the liberal revisionists who seek to turn society on it's ear and remake that which it took 200+ years to build? That justices of the ilk of Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer who have for so long represented the voices of those in the pot calling the kettle black, have revealed themselves to be little more than pawns of the very big business that they and their collective supporters always deride and decry. As a matter of historical fact is has been THEY who have constantly chided the Republicans/Conservatives amongst us as being those who would sell out the church to the moneychangers. Shame,....Shame....Everyone now knows your names!
What then...Is the bottom line in this judicial exhibition. I would say that it is, simply stated, just this. That this Gang of Five have revealed themselves to be what many among us already knew. Social revisionists and engineers who would forsake their obligation to act in the public interest by ceeding their responsibilities to the captains of industry and banking who farm and cultivate the invested dollar with total disregard for the overall public interest in pursuit of the almighty dollar and who collectively genuflect ONLY at the Altar of the Bottom Line.
Please alert your family and friends to REALITY and pass the word.... ---------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES: *As to "eminent domain" issues> http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment14/10.html#f181 *As to "Public Use" and the 5th Amendment issue/s http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html
Tragically, the City of New London is turning that dream into a nightmare.
In 1998, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer built a plant next to Fort Trumbull and the City determined that someone else could make better use of the land than the Fort Trumbull residents. The City handed over its power of eminent domain—the ability to take private property for public use—to the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private body, to take the entire neighborhood for private development. As the Fort Trumbull neighbors found out, when private entities wield government’s awesome power of eminent domain and can justify taking property with the nebulous claim of “economic development,” all homeowners are in trouble." ---------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE: As to this comment> http://www.ij.org/include/media_functions.asp?path=/private_property/connecticut/index.html&cmd=print_friend
Congressman Billybob
Why am I not surprised at this?
One does wonder if some of the folks in this particular legal support firm ALSO assisted the city of New London in coming up with this deal ~ their prior expense in rolling over the city fathers at Bhopal would have proved invaluable!
No doubt somebody ought to be checking into the receipt of unanticipated income by the 5 Justices who voted in favor of the deal.
I believe that Justice O'Connor has had negative experiences with government take-over of grazing lands in her home state of Arizona. Perhaps she is not as "objective" as some would think.
I believe that it is evident in her autobiography, "The Majesty of the Law: Reflections of a Supreme Court Justice"
Bottom line: Are we held hostage by politicians and judges until their ox is gored?
Isn't someone on NLDC married to a Pfizer executive? If so, a glaring conflict of interest?
Paging Henry Bowman...Paging Henry Bowman....
Just who pays these supreme court beings anyway?
For whose pleasure to they serve?
Not the us the USA Citizens, er I should amend that to say, not the wealthy and influential.
Just why the heck are we sending our young men and women to Iraq to fight for their freedom when our own SC is egregiously and capriciously stripping our God-Given Rights from us?
The filibuster of nominees is unconstitutional but I hate to burst your bubble but Republicans appointed a majority (3) of the 5 that just ignored the Constitution.
Ravenstar
Grrrrr. Posting before waking up is a bad idea. "its" not "it's".
O'Connor and Scalia were confirmed by Republican Senates. The Senate changed in 1987 and the first victim was Robert Bork. In addition, Rehnquist was confirmed as CJ by a Republican Senate.
Very good point and should be repeated!
Fear not! You have NOT burst my bubble as I was well aware of that. You may be reasonably sure that the Republican/Conservative powers-to-be have gone to school and learned the lesson that one must dig a wee bit deeper into not only past ruling indicators, but also to philosophical writings, etcetera lest they get burned again. A quality I think WE want is an individual who is NOT EASILY influenced by others and who has a background of beng a strict adherent to interpreting the INTENT of the law.
Pfizer NOT involved? Ha! Methinks what Pfizer is trying to do is to stand quietly in the corner and trying to blend in with the wallpaper, so as not to be noticed. They, as all the drug companies, have had a bad public relations year and would like to avoid the spotlight, especially when it draws them into a rather volatile and rancorous constitutional debate.
Well SirThomas, this comment "Pay no attention to the 5-4 decision, it's a charade." got my juices flowing. It's matters not what you think of the members of the high court...elitists or reactionaries or whatever, but you shot from the lip prematurely with that comment. I say that simply because there is no single act, that can be wrought by government, that is MORE significant and impactful on the way we live in this society than a ruling by the highest court in the land. They are markerposts in time and constantly referenced in all manner of discourse AND when they are bad rulings are damned hard to undo. A precedent established by the United States Supreme Court can be readily challenged, but NOT readily undone. Can you spell
M-a-d-a-ly-n M-u-r-r-a-y O'-H-a-r-e?
There Union Carbide managed to convince the city fathers to allow them to build a poison gas factory in the middle of town.
No doubt that law firm and its people specialize in corrupting the system ~ here, there, everywhere.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, simply stating why I thought Pfizer wants NO PART of this debate.
There are other companies that make drugs.
OOPS! Forgot something in my initial response. You remarked that..."The filibuster of nominees is unconstitutional". I think you'll be hard put to validate that assertion. All it is, is simple tyranny of the MINORITY as their way to say...'Deal with us'. What you recently saw was the majority constantly demanding an "up or down vote" (in response), which is their way of saying....'Stick it where the sun don't shine!'
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.