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 ...
Yes, I think you did.
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."
He said in his own view this was bad law.
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.
However, he said it did fit the definition of public use according to the Constitution. That is his error, interpreting private use as public us. He completely changed the meaning of the Constitution to say it was Constitutional.
He's a CFR goon, following the plan.
Maybe he has some remorse over his part in the destruction of the Republic.
I doubt it.
Well, if he's actually means what he is saying, he is simply a very principled F'ing Moron....and should be impeached.
And you are a man I can respect...
John Paul Stevens on ABC World News Tonight about his speach to the American Lawyers this past week --
On Kelo-New London: He would have sided differently as a legislator, but as a jurist had to uphold the Constitution.
PROOF of the voracious schizophrenia of the American legal industry in order to keep the citizenry off-balance. It AIN'T a liberal/conservative thing!!!! It is the legal industry attempting to subvert the Constitution and political processes for its own ends. After all, the national and the state legislatures are full of JURISTS AS THE MAJORITY VOCATION THAT IS REPRESENTED!!!!
By the way, ABC doesn't seem to proud of running ITS story last night, as nothing of it can be found on the ABC news site!?
HDR
Please ping the John Paul Stevens' schizophrenic controversy for the North Carolina ping.
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.