Posted on 07/05/2005 5:56:34 AM PDT by SamuraiScot
With Justice Sandra Day O'Connor gone from the Supreme Court, choosing her successor is NOT the most important task before us. More critical is reducing the damage a clueless and arrogant Court can do. Thankfully, there are signs that America is moving toward a new declaration of independence.
The Court unleashed its latest shocker on June 23. In a 5-4 decision called Kelo vs. New London, the Court declared that it's okay for the government to seize your house just for the purpose of giving it to someone else.
[snip]
Only Congress is authorized to make laws or spend money. To deflate a self-important Supreme Court, we don't need a Constitutional amendment or a "nuclear option." Congress needs only to take the "inaction option."
Suppose that tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court decrees that each public bar must have a diaper-changing station in the men's bathroom.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefactis.org ...
Very droll.
Excellent article. Thank you.
Bump. Thanks for this post. Bravo!
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 realted 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.