Sunday, June 26, 2005 Five Disgraceful ‘Justices’ on the US Supreme Court in Kelo vs New London (125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005)) With the Supreme Court eviscerating the freedoms protected in the Constitution this week with its abandonment of the Founders’ intent in writing the Commerce Clause and Fifth Amendment, every protection becomes that much more important.
Regarding the 5th Amendment Takings case (Kelo v. New London) under eminent domain, the Supreme Court has shown what intellectual light-weights, who apparently have never read the Constitution of the United States can do when left to their own whims. And let us make that perfectly clear – five so-called “Justices” of the United States Supreme Court did nothing but substitute their own whim for the law. Every piece of property in the United States is at risk. We have taken another huge step down the road to captivity at the hands of the government. Either the Justices never read the Constitution or they chose to violate their oath to uphold it – either way disgraceful actions.
There are no words for their betrayal of the Constitution and the Founders. This is a decision which should go down in infamy as a defining one in the loss of liberty in the 21st Century along with several from the 20th Century. Their names should be near the top of the list for people who have sold out our liberty for their own power and temporary aggrandizement.
If you never understood the problem with an activist judge, just ask any one of the home-owners who have lost their home to big business via big government. When you, your life, and your property can be disposed of at the whim of a government, you have no freedom, you have no liberty. You live in fear of tyranny. You merely await the politician to cease power and take your liberty. What a fragile thing is liberty, once lost, difficult to regain.
One should note that Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer the so-called ‘liberal’ Justices voted that the takings was Constitutional. If it was not clear already, the main things the group is liberal with are (a) other people’s money, (b) other people’s property, and (c) the words of the Constitution. If nothing else has made it clear, this decision should do so – when the meaning of the Constitution is subject to the whim of the majority of five, instead of the clear language and meaning of the words that are written, the Constitution becomes meaningless.
The dissent from Justices O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas stated in part: “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.” O’Connor argued that the decision eliminates “any distinction between private and public use of property ?¢‚Ç¨‚Äù and thereby effectively [deletes] the words ‘for public use’ from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment”.
Thomas added that “something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.” Thomas is absolutely correct – the Constitution rarely needs to be interpreted, the words and history are clear. The problem begins when the Supreme Court begins to make social policy instead of standing as a bulwark of protecting the Constitution.
What are the next steps? Each of the 5 Justices (and that term should no longer be applied to them, they should be named “InJustices”) should have their own homes subjected to a Takings case. Likewise, each member of the New London government who began the process should have their own property subjected to that same.
The case here is another clear example of government over-reaching and no one standing up for your rights. The five members of the Supreme Court who voted for this are disgraceful, intellectual light-weights who should not be sitting on the court.
Supreme Court Justices who voted for taking land: Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer
Supreme Court Justices who voted against taking land: takings: O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
For some more commentary on this, through June 29, 2005:
1. “Lost Liberty Hotel” proposed for Justice Souter’s land. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1432150/posts
(this is a great idea and should be proposed for EACH piece of property one of the Justices who voted for this owns. Let them go to the expense of defending themselves from their own stupidity. And it should be done over and over again for various projects.) For current updates on the Lost Liberty Hotel, see this link.
2. The Supreme Court’s reverse Robin Hood’s http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006862
3. Peggy Noonan on various topics: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006884
Christian H F Riley, Esq.