Get a bigger hammer.
Posted on 08/24/2005 6:24:58 PM PDT by wagglebee
WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 - It is not every day that a Supreme Court justice calls his own decisions unwise. But with unusual candor, Justice John Paul Stevens did that last week in a speech in which he explored the gap that sometimes lies between a judge's desire and duty.
Addressing a bar association meeting in Las Vegas, Justice Stevens dissected several of the recent term's decisions, including his own majority opinions in two of the term's most prominent cases. The outcomes were "unwise," he said, but "in each I was convinced that the law compelled a result that I would have opposed if I were a legislator."
In one, the eminent domain case that became the term's most controversial decision, he said that his majority opinion that upheld the government's "taking" of private homes for a commercial development in New London, Conn., brought about a result "entirely divorced from my judgment concerning the wisdom of the program" that was under constitutional attack.
His own view, Justice Stevens told the Clark County Bar Association, was that "the free play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public officials." But he said that the planned development fit the definition of "public use" that, in his view, the Constitution permitted for the exercise of eminent domain.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I wonder if this lunatic has ever even read the Constitution.
He is well aware of it, but prefers the Marxist perspective that allows for endless "interpretation".
That Stevens still identifies himself as a Republican astounds me.
First we had a Kerryism where he voted for it before he voted against it. Now, do we have a reverse Kerryism where Stevens voted for it, before he wished he voted against it?
I wonder if this lunatic has ever even read the Constitution.
------
Well, given that the Constitution is the major obstacle for radical liberal activists on the SCOTUS, I bet he has read it more times than we can image. His job is to OBSTRUCT and TEAR DOWN the Constitution through judicial fiat....a good, respectable ANTI-AMERICAN.
What about the question of "unwise laws" that he posed as the other side of his equation? It is NOT the business of any Justice to decide what laws are "wise" or "unwise." That is the business of Congress (federal laws) and state legislatures (state laws). The theory of American government is, but Stevens apparently hasn't heard of this, that legislators decide what laws are "wise."
If a law duly passed turns out to be a failure, it is the business of the legislators to amend or repeal the law. And it is the business of the people to throw the legislators out and choose new ones, when the people see that a law is "unwise" but the legislators refuse to act.
This is so simple, so clear, and yet Stevens can't see it. That means he is a political bigot, seeking to enforce his views on others by force of his position on the Court. Contrary to the praise this writer heaps on Stevens, he is a fraud, a menace, and a threat to the future of the nation.
Did I miss anything?
Congressman Billybob
Amendment 1, amendment 2, amendment 3, amendment 5, amendment 6... nope, don't see anything that might cover this one. Must be okay!
Get a bigger hammer.
Nope, that about covers it!
The second Stevens realized that the arch traitor Ginsburg was a Jezebel, he should have reconsidered his decision ~ or did he realize that? Bet he thought it had something to do with sexual seduction ~ not simply the use of muscle to steal someone's property.
Oh he obeys the constitution.
Well, he obeys the 14th amendment anyway. The one that states
"This equal protection clause may be twisted to anything you see fit for it to mean".
Asshole.
this is not following the law, this is black robe fever CYA.
Legend has it that the original draft of the Declaration read "Life, Liberty, and Property" but this was considered too radical, so in a compromise the watered-down, namby-pamby "Pursuit of Happiness" was settled upon.
See, even the Founding Fathers caved in to the Liberals.
Perhaps Stevens' home will be taken by eminent domain as well. I stand ready to dump my stocks and invest in any project that does so.
As I've posted here before, John Paul Stevens is living proof that Gerald Ford was the dumbest President in history.
It probably depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Whether any "public benefit" accrues should be ignored. "Public benefit" is not "public use". It just isn't. When you ignore the claims about public benefit used to justify such takings, it becomes more obvious that the taking is not for "public use".
>>the planned development fit the definition of "public use"<<
How can private development fit "public use?"
In Stevens case, there's no fool like an old fool.
This thread might be a good place to ask a question about the way the SCOTUS conducts judicial review.
I read somewhere recently that while they do sit together to hear the case, they do not meet and discuss their opinions on the case with each other or as a group. The chief judge gets their opinions and then asks one of the judges in the majority to write the majority opinion, and lets the minority that they can add their dissents if they want to and that's it. Is this correct?
If that's true, then there is no intellectual give and take among them. They do not try to persuade each other on the merits of their own ideas. In that vacuum, I can see how their clerks come to play a much greater role than the public realizes; particularly with those judges who are more intellectually challenged.
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.