Posted on 07/14/2009 9:27:55 AM PDT by Wardenclyffe
If you thought Judge Sonia Sotomayor's controversial stances on racial issues were problematic, you should get a gander at the Supreme Court nominee's apparent hostility to property rights.
Judge Sotomayor served as the senior judge on one 2006 case, Didden v. Village of Port Chester, which respected University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein described as "about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined." Her judicial panel's ruling might be the worst violation of property rights ever approved by a federal appeals court. It is part of a pattern of Judge Sotomayor's pro-government rulings that run roughshod over the most basic of private property rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Sotomayor is apparently a wrecking ball aimed at the U.S. Constitution.
See new tag line, just for Sonya, the Quota Queen...
“Sotomayor’s bias against private property.”
What? A Liberal having a bias against private property?
Impossible!!!
/S/
Makes sense. Obama destroys the ‘rule of law’ during the Chrysler bailout. (sanctity of contracts) and now this.
“You ain’t seen nothing yet!” said Barack Obama.
ping
Good one! I think she might’ve had that one on written on her bedroom wall.
Just fired off a version of this to Isakson and Chambliss. Suggest you let YOUR guys hear from YOU ASAP!!!!
db
Senator,
A vote AGAINST Sonia Sotomayor will be a vote FOR principle.
Regardless of her testimony and responses, she is a dangerous leftist. And the argument by the increasingly silly and irrelevant Lindsey Graham that she is no worse than Souter is akin to a doctor telling you that your lung cancer is cured – but you have leukemia. I heard Graham remark that “The President has a right to get the people he wants.” That “logic” says that if Obama WANTS to abolish an elected legislature for a politbureau of his fellow Chicago thugs – which he is in the process of doing with his “czars,” — you should simply roll over, move on and let him have it. Good grief!!
Should you be tempted to vote FOR her to curry favor with Georgia’s large Hispanic population, you will be making a HUGE error in judgment. Thousands of them are non-citizens, here in violation of immigration laws and, in light of the recent idiotic Justice Department ruling that Georgia may NOT require voters to show ID, ACORN (or whatever they are calling themselves today) will drag them to the polls on election day anyway. And if you think they will vote for you because you supported Sotomayor, you had better think again: ACORN WILL INSTRUCT THEM VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT OR THEY WON’T GET THE PROMISED 20 BUCKS, PACK OF SMOKES OR WHATEVER.
VOTE “NO” ON SOTOMAYOR!
Dick & Sharon Bachert
From the article:
In essence, wrote Mr. Epstein and George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, the taking of private property amounted to “out-and-out extortion” with government support. Yet Judge Sotomayor’s panel not only ruled against Mr. Didden’s property rights, but did so with a bare, six-paragraph order - as Mr. Somin described it, “without serious examination of the legal issues to any significant degree.”
She allowed some a-hole developer to take property that was a CVS pharmacy and instead build a Walgreens.
How in the name of all that is holy does anyone have this authority in the United States?
Only in the Obama/Reid/Pelosi/Castro/Chavez world.
It might be time for the enactment of an amendment on property rights.
It should make the taking of property (1)absolutely necessary (2) for BROAD public use (3) not for mere tax or aesthetic advantage (4) not if ANY other land remotely usable for the same purpose is available (5) not if the purpose is remotely connected to desiring a choice location (6) never for transfer from one owner to any other owner.
In both Communist countries and ours:
Free speech is restricted. (As in McCain Feingold, Fairness Doctrine or equivalent)
Private property is subject to arbitrary confiscation by government.
Freedom to express one's religious views are subject to arcane restrictions from every level of government.
Innocent life, guilty only of conception can be taken.
The right to a fair trial is curtailed unless you are a member of a favored racial minority.
The right to enjoy the fruits of most of your labor.
The right to free association is restricted to minority groups such as the Congressional Black or Hispanic Caucus, not the high school kids who wish to form a Christian club.
Kelo was decided - rightly - on Federalist grounds. It might be bad policy, but that's not the Federal court's job to establish. Kelo amply demonstrated that all through the 1800's, eminent domain was legally used for private development.
You are right - this is ripe for abuse, but that doesn't mean the Court should butt in and fix it.
Agreed. BTW, my state enacted what is effectively the restrictions the Padre noted years ago. Kelo couldn’t happen here. If people in the other states want protection from the Kelo decision, they can have it from their legislatures.
There may be all sorts of reasons to oppose this nominee, but this one based on a panel decision in Didden is just one more piece of the ever expanding nonsense coming from the losers of the last election.
Just so readers understand what the panel decided in Didden, the Circuit affirmed a District Court order on a Motion To Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on the grounds that Didden’s claim was barred by the 3 year statute of limitations applicable to 42 USC 1983 actions in New York state. In other words, Didden filed his case too late. Freepers are being played like cheap violins! Here’s a link to the decision:
http://vlex.com/vid/didden-village-port-chester-summ-ord-20315525
Anyone who hasn’t looked into this case, be forewarned. Don’t look at it before you take your blood pressure meds or you’re going to look like a lawn sprinkler.
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.