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


1 posted on 07/01/2005 9:43:20 AM PDT by blitzgig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: blitzgig

I nominate Kilpatrick to replace O'Connor


2 posted on 07/01/2005 9:48:46 AM PDT by lunarbicep ("Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." - G. B. Shaw)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blitzgig
I wouldn't call it "just" compensation, but nearer to just compensation would be if they paid Kelo, et al., enough money to purchase the new home that they propose to build on that site.

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.

4 posted on 07/01/2005 11:56:19 AM PDT by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blitzgig

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.


5 posted on 07/01/2005 1:05:00 PM PDT by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blitzgig

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.


13 posted on 07/07/2005 12:19:15 AM PDT by FReethesheeples (Gonzales iappears to be quite WEAK on Property rights!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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