Posted on 07/01/2005 9:43:19 AM PDT by blitzgig
The Supreme Court ended its current term on Monday with more of a whimper than a bang. In the Ten Commandments cases, the justices further muddied the muddy waters of the First Amendment. In a Colorado case, they found no way to compensate a victim of grossly incompetent cops. They refused even to hear the appeal of two reporters who face prison for doing their job. Then they doffed their robes and departed for the summer. One is reminded of Oliver Cromwell's farewell to the Rump Parliament of 1653: "You have sat too long for any good you have done. Let us have done with you! In the name of God, go!"
The most regrettable decision of a regrettable term came a week ago, in the eminent domain case of Kelo v. City of New London. Speaking through Justice John Paul Stevens, the court applied the law according to Humpty Dumpty. To that eminent jurist, words meant only what he chose them to mean, and neither more nor less. Until last week, the words "public use" meant "public use." Now they mean "public purpose or private benefit."
To be sure, this was not the first time the court has effectively amended the Constitution by judicial interpretation. The subtle process dates from the days of John Marshall. Only a few weeks ago the court rewrote the 21st Amendment in order to nullify the liquor laws of Michigan and New York. Last week's plastic surgery on the Fifth was surgery at a more critical level.
Every sixth-grader can identify a public "use." The indispensable power of eminent domain permits governments to build roads, establish parks, erect public buildings and establish public schools. These are public uses.
(Excerpt) Read more at uexpress.com ...
I nominate Kilpatrick to replace O'Connor
Seconded
Notwithstanding there can be no just compensation if her property has been seized by force. Any compensation is a sham.
Now about Mr. Kilpatrick. Is he still alive? Is this the same JJK who jousted with Shana the ignorant slut? I was devouring his syndicated column back in the sixties.
Not many people remember Kilpatrick, the grand old man of conservative columnists. I'd thought him retired or dead.
After I read one of his columns last year I was moved to write him and got a very gracious reply.
He still writes some, but doesn't get near the coverage in the number of papers he used to, more's the pity. He's a very wise man.
Yes, he is that exact same Kilpatrick alright. He is indeed a extremely skilled columnist.
The last I recall he was living in Charleston, S.C. and I too assumed he had retired. We need to find out if he still does syndication and (if so) through which source. If anyone confirms, please alert me. Thanks
Kilpatrick still writes his columns regularly. You can find them at www.uexpress.com/coveringthecourts. They show his columns on the Supreme Court and on the English Language.
Here is the link:
http://www.uexpress.com/coveringthecourts/
We need to check on his columns and post them regularly to let this generation of conservatives know what good writing is all about.
As a writer myself, I always enjoyed his columns on the English language and exposition.
I do agree with you completely. We do need to find and share his work here. I am certain it would be well received.
I teach English in college on occasion and can testify that the level of teaching in high school is terrible. Do you know that for years, the newest 'thing' in English departments was to ignore grammar in favor of 'letting the poor dears express themselves."
And the Houston Chronicle editorial pages often have errors that would have been cause for firing prior to the wave of touchy-feely teaching that supplanted grammar.
Good post. Thanks for your post. Bump.
As a result of outrage over Kelo vs. New London, Ct., it is great to see Americans so aware of, & energized in defense of, private property rights by addressing threats, this terrible precedent (Kelo v. New London), and becoming aware of the downside of activist Judges. I have been concerned with both of these related issues for about a decade. I even had brief, separate, conversational encounters with two of the "good" Justices (Scalia & Thomas) in the Kelo case about 6 or 7 years ago re: "The Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment designed to protect private property from arbitrary seizures, but providing for Eminent Domain for certain "public use" (NOT "public purpose") . It was clear they were anxious to see some good cases walk toward them. I doubt if they would have predicted the bizarre outcome in Kelo, though.
For those of us who are deeply concerned with protection of Private Property from improper application of Eminent Domain in contravention of the Original Intent of the Founders in the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, I am registering a warning or a concern:
I think AG (& potential USSC Nominee) Alberto Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))
and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.
As some have frequently observed, he certainly believes in a "Living Constitution" and is NOT a strict constructionist or an Originalist, but rather tends toward the Activist side, per National Review Online and others.
He has been sharply critical of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme Ct. decisions when they were both on that Ct. as Justices, and he has been quoted as being sharply criticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, including being quoted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.
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.