Posted on 03/10/2006 9:43:20 AM PST by TexasAg1996
Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor showed Thursday that she's not absent from judicial issues. During a speech in Washington, she said Republican leaders' attacks on the courts threaten the constitutional freedoms of Americans.
So now the Supreme Court can't be criticized. I hate judges...
There's two issues with Kelo. One is Constitutional - whether the government can do it. The other is more philosophical or pragmatic - whether they should be able to do so? The first issue is satisfied as long as the government gives sufficient process and pays for the property they take. This was the focus of Kelo, and on that narrow grounds, I agree. The government can do that.
On the second issue, whether they should do that, well, not even Breyer (the author of the decision, IIRC) thought it was good policy. But the Supreme Court's job is not to determine whether a duly elected State government's policy is a good idea. SCOTUS is authorized only to say if the State can do it.
What? He was an associate justice for 3.5 years before he resigned. He never made it as chief justice, but he was on the Court. Believe me - I've read enough Fortas opinions.
dirtboy, wake up from your dirt nap. Abe Fortas was an associate Supreme Court Justice from October 4, 1965 through May 14, 1969. He resigned after Pres. Johnson nominated him for Chief Justice and the investigation revealed some financial wrongdoing.
Fortus was appointed by LBJ and was on the Court for 4 years before he was forced to resign because of financial shenanigans.
It was a big mistake to ever put her on the court. I'm really glad to have her behind us. Just hope we can clean up some of her messes in short order. Good bye, Justice O'Connor. Thank God and Greyhound you're gone.
Let's go back to the Fifth again:
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Public use. Not private use. Should be the end of the matter right there. Instead, SCOTUS engaged in the same absurd destruction of the meaning of words that they did in Wickard and Gonzelez in deeming that the Commerce Clause allows the fedgov to regulate activities involving neither commerce nor interstate movement.
If words mean whatever five justices deem them to mean, then the Constitution in turn has no meaning and offers no protections to individuals. Period.
On the second issue, whether they should do that, well, not even Breyer (the author of the decision, IIRC) thought it was good policy. But the Supreme Court's job is not to determine whether a duly elected State government's policy is a good idea. SCOTUS is authorized only to say if the State can do it.
Sorry, but SCOTUS looked at the clear meaning of words and changed them. Breyer is just as culpable as those local tyrants taking land.
My bad.
Fortas, Abe
Born June 19, 1910, in Memphis, TN
Died April 5, 1982, in Washington, DC
Federal Judicial Service:
Supreme Court of the United States
Nominated by Lyndon B. Johnson on July 28, 1965, to a seat vacated by Arthur J. Goldberg; Confirmed by the Senate on August 11, 1965, and received commission on August 11, 1965. Service terminated on May 14, 1969, due to resignation.
A personal attack, for no reason, and I don't even know who the hell you are. You are in no position to comment on anyone else's level of class.
This proves how much of a legislator she is, from Arizona pushing pro-abortion bills...to the SCOTUS making law from th bench.
Go quietly into the night lady...we will not miss you!
Liberals yes! Conservatives and Libertarians...NO!!!!
Wretched people who can't stand the heat!
The Constitutional rights of the people of these united States of America are in danger from the SCOTUS, as well as political parties gone awry!
Don't forget precedents from foreign laws and courts!
One would think folks of such high intellect and strength could not be threatened by anything.
Intellectual wimps is what they are, especially if their rulings can not stand up to the light of day and the written word!!!!
no way, Kelo violates the taking clause. state and local governments are corrupt, they will act in their own self interests to seize property.
"very few jurisdictions using that power"? I don't know where you are getting this from, its being used in waterfront property everywhere. people living along the water in new jersey, places like Long Branch and Neptune city, are being systematically run out of town using this practice. its happening in Florida to.
Basically, any "valuable" property is up for grabs. and that means waterfront, and that hits home for me personally.
"A little revolution now and then is a good thing"
I guess in her mind, our founding father was not speaking of the honorable court!
You can bet your bippy he was including EVERY piece of the federal government!!!!
The focus of Kelo was NOT whether or not the government had the right to use eminent domain to exercise a forced purchase of private property. This right has been clearly established since the Constitution was written and was note in dispute.
The real issue in dispute was that it was the first case where the prime developer and the prime beneficiary of the economic development in question was a privately owned corporation, thus bringing into question the meaning of the "public use" clause. New London argued successfully that an increased tax base was all that was required to satisfy the definition of "public use".
the latest move on long island now - they are seizing a private golf course to move housing developers in. its going to court of course, but the local gobvernment officials are all getting greased by the real estate developers to make this happen.
She should speak "specifically" to those examples then, not with a broad brush that chills all kinds of comments and dissent from their popish, pontifical pronouncements!
No offense to any Catholics!
and what do they "pay" for the property? they don't pay market rate, if someone wants my oceanfront house to build a condo complex on - the value of my house just went up 300%. but eminent domain allows the government to steal that increased market value of my house from me, by imposing that I be paid me "fair market value" - as if there wasn't going to be waterfront condos on it.
its outright theft.
Fortas's appointment in 1965 ensured the continuation of the Court's liberal majority. ... During his time on the Court, Fortas continued to advise LBJ on political matters, both foreign and domestic. ... By 1969, further revelations led Fortas to resign from the Court.
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.