Posted on 07/13/2019 5:56:41 AM PDT by Kaslin
The just-ended Supreme Court term went exceedingly well for individual liberty. From property rights to government agencies to offensive words, there were triumphs for individual rights and a pushback against the encroaching regulatory state.
Take property rights, for example. When rural Scott Township, Pennsylvania, told the public it could trespass across Rose Knick’s 90 acres of farmland to look for alleged graves, she could get no relief out of state court. But, when she went to federal court arguing that the town took an easement across her property, she was again rebuffed based on a 34-year-old Supreme Court precedent — Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank — which locks the federal courthouse doors to landowners.
In other words, property rights were the only right protected by the Constitution that could not be protected in federal court. Represented pro bono by Pacific Legal Foundation, Rose managed to get Williamson County overturned. As the Supreme Court put it in Knick v. Scott Township, property rights are no longer the “poor relation” of constitutional rights.
Regulatory agencies were also in the Court’s cross-hairs in Kisor v. Wilkie, a case asking whether courts should always defer to what federal agencies say their regulations mean. In recent years, a growing number of scholars, lawyers, and even judges have begun to question the doctrine that says courts can’t second-guess what regulators say that a law means or even what a regulation interpreting the law means.
James Kisor was a Vietnam War vet who was in a dispute over some disability benefits he thought he was owed. He also believed that the Veterans Administration regulations favored his case, but the VA saw things differently. The VA proceeded to tell the Supreme Court that under the deference doctrine, it was the VA’s way or the highway.
Justice Kagan, writing for the Court, said in essence, “not so fast.” While deference may be appropriate in some cases, it’s not appropriate in all. From now on, the justices held, the courts must examine all the facts and circumstances before deciding to defer to an agency’s judgment over what its regulations mean. While this wasn’t a complete takedown of deference, it should prove to be a pretty effective body slam. Or, as one justice put it, deference has been “zombified.”
Earlier in the term, the Court was confronted by an absent-but-endangered gopher frog on a tree farm in Louisiana. That is, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service designated this tree farm as critical habitat for the frog, even though the frog didn’t live on the property, hadn’t been seen near the property in a half-century, and would likely die out if it were moved there. Facing $34 million in costs, the landowners sued. A unanimous court in Weyerhaeuser v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serviceeasily rejected the government’s arguments, and held that “critical habitat” has to contain habitat. And, if the frog can’t survive on the land, then calling it critical habitat can’t be supported.
Lastly, the Court proved that you can trust it on matters of free speech. First, when a private New York City cable operator decided to police the content of its public access channel, a person denied a platform sued, claiming a First Amendment violation. But the Constitution prevents only government from restricting speech, not private persons, newspapers, or cable companies. In a decision that should have significant implications for the modern internet era, the Supreme Court affirmed that just because someone receives a license to operate, doesn’t prevent it from deciding what to publish.
And in its final free speech case of the term, the Court held in Iancu v. Brunetti that the federal government couldn’t refuse a trademark to a fashion company with the brand and an acronym that may be offensive to some but clever to others: “Friends U Can’t Trust.” The bottom line, according to Justice Kagan’s opinion, was that the government may not engage in viewpoint discrimination.
These decisions should be celebrated by fans of liberty, and we should be encouraged that the Supreme Court looks poised to protect individual liberty in the coming term as well.
Here's the beautiful thing in Kagan's language: whether or not she knows it, she just made a clear and cogent case against Stare Decisis.
THIS is what we like to hear!
Now, let’s build on that; get our ‘mojo’ going.
Very exciting...
“...held that ‘critical habitat’ has to contain habitat. And, if the frog can’t survive on the land, then calling it critical habitat can’t be supported.”
OMG. THIS was taken to SCOTUS? Simple logic should have nipped this long before that.
bump
Smart pick-up on that!
The first free speech case doesn’t bode well for free speech or freedom of thought on the Internet. If only government is forbidden from squelching free speech then that means FB, Google, Twitter, etal. are free to become arbiters of what will and will not be allowed to be posted on the ‘Net’. Not a good thing for conservative voices.
I wish the supremes also addressed second amendment issues, the other related poor constitutional right... there will be a deluge of cases if not in the future.
Let us note, however, that if first amendment there is, the government can exert huge pressures through the private media and sector to restrict speech in that realm. The media as a collective does not have freedom of soeech, because its screams do alert huge amount of population at a time.
Wonderful except for one thing: the Supreme Court, the Judicial Branch, is NOT legally authorized to make national law.
The Constitution provides that ONLY Congress, the Legislative Branch, may make national law.
Would to God We the People would enforce that and take back state law that the feds have illegally stolen, including anti-abortion laws.
The problem is not the three branches. The problem is the sixth estate...... lawyers.
There is no agreement on what is the law. “What” is is left to the tyranny of lawyers to decide.
America has degenerated to a tyranny of lawyers that slop at the trough of no real law
The Court remains drunk on power as even its conservative members demonstrate.
Where I see an in against Twitter and FB is their rules which are not uniformly enforced and it is very obvious.
The Constitution states that IT is the Supreme Law of the Land (Art. VI, Cl 2).
Unless you've abandoned the foundations of our country, there is NO disagreement about what is the overriding law of the land. The fact is, most federal law and acts are ILLEGAL and INVALID.
Patriot's job is to be clear about this and about the Satanic Left's relentless push to destroy the Constitution and destroy America.
Don't forget - the ONLY legal bulwark against the tyranny of the feds is the Constitution. Abandon the Constitution and tyranny is yours.
Understood, but not true; folks use the mentioned serices as a matter of choice, let the market decide. Okay, google FB Twit et all are leftist statist garbage, but so what, move on to some other service, or voice your opinion so that some favorable source is developed for your consumption.
Having anyone other than the government restricted is not good for conservatives- think of the issue around the equal time on talk radio- a majority conservative market- want the govt/courts to require equal time to the commie loving left on BOT radio or similar?
Anyways;
The one question never asked of Judicial Nominees (and Politicians), explain what the term “Shall Not Be Infringed” means.
That term is only mentioned one time in our Bill of Rights. No other Amendment carries the weight of such defined clarification.
Very good point.
But, if government is doing their Constitutional duty, they should be protecting our rights, correct?
Things like free speech, freedom of association, unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.
At a minimum they should break up the oligopolies the Bolsheviks are using to (try to) silence and manipulate us.
Maybe I am engaging in wishful thinking here, I don’t know.
Your point is very valid.
Excellent point and a law should be passes which requires craft3 of a specific law by Congress when faced with cases that set new precedent.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
After some scratching, Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank (Williamson) did not lock federal courthouse doors to landowners imo.
I agree with Justice Blackmun’s analysis of Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank.
The Supreme Court properly acknowledged 5th Amendment (5A) protections in Williamson. However, even if the plaintiff had a bonafide complaint against the state, Justice Blackmun had explained that the plaintiff had not worked within the laws of the State of Tennessee to claim 5A protections. Corrections, insights welcome.
The problem imo is that too many “expert" interpretations of the Constitution these days seem to be based on rumors, hearsay and gossip about it, let’s also include post-FDR era institutional indoctrination and attorneys following the money, instead of people studying it for themselves.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Not necessarily, but you still can’t discriminate.
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.