Location, Location, Location
Those of you who read my blog frequently know that I am all about consensus, comity, and equanimity. But those of you who read my blog because you enjoy my wry, understated sense of humor might be a little disappointed——because that little gem there is all you’re gonna get.
I am so hopping mad at David Souter I can barely speak.
Now I do realize being mad at David Souter is a little like losing your temper with Mister Rodgers. But it ain’t such a wonderful day in the neighborhood, not in New London, Connecticut, or anywhere else in the country, for that matter, thanks to the Supreme Court. It is interesting how Mister Souter has suddenly become the poster boy of what is wrong with the judicial system. Those of you who thought that was just a hysterical rant of the far-Right or a disingenuous ploy to cover some diabolical plan to unfairly manipulate the court system had better wake up.
Recently, a friend asked me who the intended audience was for my blog. I responded by saying, “The people I most want to read my blog are those least likely to read it.” (Is it vain to quote myself? “Probably,” I say.) Nevertheless, allow me a brief digression. Danny from Houston criticized my last posting for being somewhat “confusing.” I was not at all put off by his criticism since I mostly agreed (though I would have used the word “unfocused”). Rather, I was flattered at how he quoted me back to me. “And that point would be . . . ?”
This time, I trust my point is clear. I am, of course, talking about Kelo v. New London and how that ruling accentuates the need for sound jurists. If you have not heard of the case, I will refrain from berating you in hopes that you will listen to what I have to say, though I do have to admit, you have already provoked me. (Give me a minute. Let me count to ten . . . . . . . . . . I’m okay now.)
Simply put, the case involves a woman who lives in a small, economically depressed Connecticut town. (I know, hard to believe there is such a thing in Connecticut.) Private developers sought to remake the area, “and would have gotten away with it too (to use a little Scooby Doo parlance) if it weren't for that darn Susette Kelo.” Susette Kelo, along with six other families, some of whom have lived in the neighborhood for generations, going back more than a century, were being forced out of their homes.
Eminent domain refers to government’s right to appropriate private property-—after offering just compensation—-for public use. The key term, “public use,” has generally been understood to mean roads, railways, utilities and such. But this case involved a private developer, and eminent domain should have had no bearing whatsoever.
Yet the New London Development Corporation, a private entity controlled by the city (or perhaps vice versa), argued that if hotels could be built in the location of these people’s homes, the development would generate greater tax revenue that could certainly be used for the “public use.”
Voilà. Five members on the High Court bought into the argument and sold out the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
This ruling reveals a great deal about our current philosophical priorities. It is a ruling that says there is no higher value than money in the hands of our government. Not our Constitution or laws. Not the freedoms on which this nation was founded that allowed for private ownership. And certainly not a Creator who endowed us with “certain inalienable rights” from whence we derive our very freedom. No, I’m not even going to acknowledge the confused, twisted, and conflicting rulings regarding the Ten Commandments.
It is ironic that I started out facetiously talking about comity and consensus because there is, in fact, a great deal of consensus that the Kelo verdict is an aberration. Painful as it has been, I have sought out liberals and Democrats (assuming there is a difference), conservatives and Republicans (assuming there is none), seeking their opinions, looking for just one person, not even one rational person, just one mildly coherent person who agreed with the Court’s ruling. I have found no one.
Indeed, when Tom Delay and members of the Congressional Black Caucus are urgently working to pass the same bill, something is seriously wrong. When the ACLU and Bill O’Reilly are in total agreement, our nation must be in crisis.
While I have had no ambivalence about this case, I must admit to finding myself tremendously conflicted. With righteous anger and without apology, I side with the little guy, those residents of this working class neighborhood, against the corporate interests, the developers, and those who were able to manipulate government for their own gain. And with shock and horror, I wonder privately, Is this what it feels like to be a Democrat-—at least what a Democrat used to be?
When it comes to understanding the proper role of government, perhaps no two American leaders have been more dissimilar than Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan (who used to be a Democrat). Where Clinton sought to inspire, frequently talking about the role government could play and the profound power it had to do good, Reagan railed against intrusive government, steering away from temptation, and warning of the profound harm government could do. In light of the Kelo decision, those who were inclined to challenge Reagan then champion Clinton really have reason to take pause.
I do not generally think it is helpful to assign blame, except for when it is necessary to correct a problem or avoid making the same mistake in the future. That being said, in the case of Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. New London, the Democrats are totally to blame.
This just in . . . Sandra Day O’Connor has decided to retire.
Because much attention will be focused on the Court for the next several weeks, probably months if more retirements soon follow, I do not wish to elaborate on the implications of O’Connor’s retirement. Rather, I will to keep my focus (out of respect for Danny in Houston) and finish what I started. That being said, the timing of Justice O’Connor’s announcement is interesting.
Nominated by President Reagan, Justice O’Connor has generally been perceived to be a more moderate swing vote. Yet, she wrote the dissent (which is to say minority opinion) in the Kelo case and was joined by the three most vilified members of the Court: Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist, nominated by Bush, Reagan, and Nixon, respectively.
The fact that these four justices offered the only sound opinion in the Kelo case really underscores the need to have strict constructionalists, or originalists on the bench. Indeed, the job of a jurist is to interpret the law by examining the original intent of the framers of the Constitution or that of subsequent lawmakers. One’s personal convictions or beliefs are of no relevance. To go back to a previous theme, that is not an opinion, but a fact, and one that must not be ignored.
I urge those predisposed to oppose all that comes from these justices, or from the presidents who nominated them, to take pause. After all, did I not just admit to a momentary empathy toward Democrats?
It might now be worth noting how the majority justices in the Kelo decision got on the court. Breyer and Ginsburg were Clinton appointees, and being such, were never expected to be originalists, wrong as that may be. Yet, the 44 Republicans in the Senate acquiesced toward confirmation.
Justice Anthony Kennedy was the product of compromise. After the Democrats killed the Bork nomination—-Bork being an originalist committed to conserving the integrity of our laws, not trying to liberate us from them—-Kennedy was the best Reagan could do against 55 Democrats.
As for John Paul Stevens being a Ford nominee, I offer the following. When Wayon Smithers reminded Mr. Burns that Homer Simpson had been hired as a part of “Project Bootstraps,” Mr. Burns sarcastically moaned, “Thank you, President Ford.” My sentiments exactly.
But David Souter is perhaps the most interesting. Not only because of the attorney who is now petitioning Weare, New Hampshire to be able to build the Lost Liberty Hotel on what is currently Mister Souter’s home, but because Souter was a “clean slate” nominee of the first President Bush.
I, in my relative youth and naiveté, remember being perplexed at the time at how Democrats were calling him a “stealth” nominee, accusing President Bush of trying to slide past some archconservative who they could not oppose without a paper trail. Souter, to conservatives, proved himself a traitor. To liberals, he was not liberal enough. In fact, neither Ted Kennedy nor John Kerry voted for Souter’s confirmation. While it is impossible to follow their logic, their motivation was awfully clear.
Obviously, no matter who President Bush nominates, the Democrats will oppose, demagogue, and try to defeat. To have either of the senators from Massachusetts lecturing the president on how to consult with the Senate regarding judicial nominees is completely disingenuous and ought to be seen as such. As stupid as Democrats consider Bush to be, they hate him for not being as stupid as they need him to be.
It is my expectation that Bush will nominate justices like Scalia and Thomas who will respect the difference between the Judicial and Legislative branches and will uphold the Constitution and the freedoms enshrined therein.
May there be a pox (or better yet, a hotel) on the house of any who would oppose such nominees.
I am so hopping mad at David Souter I can barely speak.
Now I do realize being mad at David Souter is a little like losing your temper with Mister Rodgers. But it ain’t such a wonderful day in the neighborhood, not in New London, Connecticut, or anywhere else in the country, for that matter, thanks to the Supreme Court. It is interesting how Mister Souter has suddenly become the poster boy of what is wrong with the judicial system. Those of you who thought that was just a hysterical rant of the far-Right or a disingenuous ploy to cover some diabolical plan to unfairly manipulate the court system had better wake up.
Recently, a friend asked me who the intended audience was for my blog. I responded by saying, “The people I most want to read my blog are those least likely to read it.” (Is it vain to quote myself? “Probably,” I say.) Nevertheless, allow me a brief digression. Danny from Houston criticized my last posting for being somewhat “confusing.” I was not at all put off by his criticism since I mostly agreed (though I would have used the word “unfocused”). Rather, I was flattered at how he quoted me back to me. “And that point would be . . . ?”
This time, I trust my point is clear. I am, of course, talking about Kelo v. New London and how that ruling accentuates the need for sound jurists. If you have not heard of the case, I will refrain from berating you in hopes that you will listen to what I have to say, though I do have to admit, you have already provoked me. (Give me a minute. Let me count to ten . . . . . . . . . . I’m okay now.)
Simply put, the case involves a woman who lives in a small, economically depressed Connecticut town. (I know, hard to believe there is such a thing in Connecticut.) Private developers sought to remake the area, “and would have gotten away with it too (to use a little Scooby Doo parlance) if it weren't for that darn Susette Kelo.” Susette Kelo, along with six other families, some of whom have lived in the neighborhood for generations, going back more than a century, were being forced out of their homes.
Eminent domain refers to government’s right to appropriate private property-—after offering just compensation—-for public use. The key term, “public use,” has generally been understood to mean roads, railways, utilities and such. But this case involved a private developer, and eminent domain should have had no bearing whatsoever.
Yet the New London Development Corporation, a private entity controlled by the city (or perhaps vice versa), argued that if hotels could be built in the location of these people’s homes, the development would generate greater tax revenue that could certainly be used for the “public use.”
Voilà. Five members on the High Court bought into the argument and sold out the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
This ruling reveals a great deal about our current philosophical priorities. It is a ruling that says there is no higher value than money in the hands of our government. Not our Constitution or laws. Not the freedoms on which this nation was founded that allowed for private ownership. And certainly not a Creator who endowed us with “certain inalienable rights” from whence we derive our very freedom. No, I’m not even going to acknowledge the confused, twisted, and conflicting rulings regarding the Ten Commandments.
It is ironic that I started out facetiously talking about comity and consensus because there is, in fact, a great deal of consensus that the Kelo verdict is an aberration. Painful as it has been, I have sought out liberals and Democrats (assuming there is a difference), conservatives and Republicans (assuming there is none), seeking their opinions, looking for just one person, not even one rational person, just one mildly coherent person who agreed with the Court’s ruling. I have found no one.
Indeed, when Tom Delay and members of the Congressional Black Caucus are urgently working to pass the same bill, something is seriously wrong. When the ACLU and Bill O’Reilly are in total agreement, our nation must be in crisis.
While I have had no ambivalence about this case, I must admit to finding myself tremendously conflicted. With righteous anger and without apology, I side with the little guy, those residents of this working class neighborhood, against the corporate interests, the developers, and those who were able to manipulate government for their own gain. And with shock and horror, I wonder privately, Is this what it feels like to be a Democrat-—at least what a Democrat used to be?
When it comes to understanding the proper role of government, perhaps no two American leaders have been more dissimilar than Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan (who used to be a Democrat). Where Clinton sought to inspire, frequently talking about the role government could play and the profound power it had to do good, Reagan railed against intrusive government, steering away from temptation, and warning of the profound harm government could do. In light of the Kelo decision, those who were inclined to challenge Reagan then champion Clinton really have reason to take pause.
I do not generally think it is helpful to assign blame, except for when it is necessary to correct a problem or avoid making the same mistake in the future. That being said, in the case of Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. New London, the Democrats are totally to blame.
This just in . . . Sandra Day O’Connor has decided to retire.
Because much attention will be focused on the Court for the next several weeks, probably months if more retirements soon follow, I do not wish to elaborate on the implications of O’Connor’s retirement. Rather, I will to keep my focus (out of respect for Danny in Houston) and finish what I started. That being said, the timing of Justice O’Connor’s announcement is interesting.
Nominated by President Reagan, Justice O’Connor has generally been perceived to be a more moderate swing vote. Yet, she wrote the dissent (which is to say minority opinion) in the Kelo case and was joined by the three most vilified members of the Court: Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist, nominated by Bush, Reagan, and Nixon, respectively.
The fact that these four justices offered the only sound opinion in the Kelo case really underscores the need to have strict constructionalists, or originalists on the bench. Indeed, the job of a jurist is to interpret the law by examining the original intent of the framers of the Constitution or that of subsequent lawmakers. One’s personal convictions or beliefs are of no relevance. To go back to a previous theme, that is not an opinion, but a fact, and one that must not be ignored.
I urge those predisposed to oppose all that comes from these justices, or from the presidents who nominated them, to take pause. After all, did I not just admit to a momentary empathy toward Democrats?
It might now be worth noting how the majority justices in the Kelo decision got on the court. Breyer and Ginsburg were Clinton appointees, and being such, were never expected to be originalists, wrong as that may be. Yet, the 44 Republicans in the Senate acquiesced toward confirmation.
Justice Anthony Kennedy was the product of compromise. After the Democrats killed the Bork nomination—-Bork being an originalist committed to conserving the integrity of our laws, not trying to liberate us from them—-Kennedy was the best Reagan could do against 55 Democrats.
As for John Paul Stevens being a Ford nominee, I offer the following. When Wayon Smithers reminded Mr. Burns that Homer Simpson had been hired as a part of “Project Bootstraps,” Mr. Burns sarcastically moaned, “Thank you, President Ford.” My sentiments exactly.
But David Souter is perhaps the most interesting. Not only because of the attorney who is now petitioning Weare, New Hampshire to be able to build the Lost Liberty Hotel on what is currently Mister Souter’s home, but because Souter was a “clean slate” nominee of the first President Bush.
I, in my relative youth and naiveté, remember being perplexed at the time at how Democrats were calling him a “stealth” nominee, accusing President Bush of trying to slide past some archconservative who they could not oppose without a paper trail. Souter, to conservatives, proved himself a traitor. To liberals, he was not liberal enough. In fact, neither Ted Kennedy nor John Kerry voted for Souter’s confirmation. While it is impossible to follow their logic, their motivation was awfully clear.
Obviously, no matter who President Bush nominates, the Democrats will oppose, demagogue, and try to defeat. To have either of the senators from Massachusetts lecturing the president on how to consult with the Senate regarding judicial nominees is completely disingenuous and ought to be seen as such. As stupid as Democrats consider Bush to be, they hate him for not being as stupid as they need him to be.
It is my expectation that Bush will nominate justices like Scalia and Thomas who will respect the difference between the Judicial and Legislative branches and will uphold the Constitution and the freedoms enshrined therein.
May there be a pox (or better yet, a hotel) on the house of any who would oppose such nominees.
posted by Dan O'Byrne at 1:29 PM
14 Comments:
When the ACLU and Bill O’Reilly are in total agreement, our nation must be in crisis.
So true.
THe thing that gets me is stuff like this has happened in the past. Here in Athens 2 or 3 years ago, the city ousted a trailer park community in favor up an apartment complex. Wal-Mart has used the power of the gov't already to oust businesses, churches, and residents to build super-sprawls. This ruling irks me as much as the next person, but I understood it as the SCOTUS just upholding what was already happening rather than creating a totally new precedent (though it can be said it's a new SCOTUS precedent which is pretty huge)
I agree with you completely Dan, and share your anger. But as John points out above, this type of thing was already happening, so maybe it's a good thing in the end, because it brought the problem out from under the rug. Already some states are preparing legislation to protect property rights, and there's even talk of a Constitutional Ammendment.
Now, with that out of the way, I'd like to comment on this paragraph..."While I have had no ambivalence about this case, I must admit to finding myself tremendously conflicted. With righteous anger and without apology, I side with the little guy, those residents of this working class neighborhood, against the corporate interests, the developers, and those who were able to manipulate government for their own gain. And with shock and horror, I wonder privately, Is this what it feels like to be a Democrat-—at least what a Democrat used to be?"
If I understand correctly, you are "tremendously conflicted" because you are siding with the little guy against corporate interests? I'm a hard-line Ayn Rand-style pro business kinda guy as you will ever meet, but I don't think that conflicts at all with supporting the little guy, especially in such a fundamental right as private property. Doesn't the fact that Democrats perpetrated this on us prove that in fact, they are NOT the party of the little guy, that it is all smoke and mirrors just to get votes and make themselves feel good? So to answer your question, no, this is not what it feels like to be a Democrat. That feeling would be better described as arrogant, self-serving, pompous, phony, and elitist. We know what they really think about the little guy when they talk about the ignorant red-staters who were too stupid to vote for the intellectually superior and well-bred John Kerry (who, by the way, served in Vietnam).
Being a Conservative is really about being an individualist, with equal opportunity (not equal outcome)and rights for every single person (as opposed to special groups). So to me, there is no conflict in being both pro-business, and, siding against business when they are clearly in the wrong and infringing on individual rights.
Not bad Dan, not bad.
Nominees like Scalia and Thomas that uphold your liberties?
Say good-bye to privacy.
Dear Anonymous,
I would like to hear your thoughts (and your name).
Why do you hold your opinion? What have Scalia and Thomas said that lead you to believe privacy rights would be jeopardy? Or are "privacy rights" just a euphemism for abortion and you're too ashamed to admit it?
Please point to any opinion Scalia or Thomas have issued that run as contradictory to the Constitution as the Kelo ruling does. Or do you think the Kelo decision was constitutionally sound?
Where reasonable people can disagree, reasonable people can always find common ground. Please clarify where we disagree, but also let me know where we agree.
Dan
Thanks for keeping me up-to-date on the goings-on of the world, Dan.
Having little ones has left me with little time to read the paper. I
respect your views and I share your anger regarding the people being forced
to sell their homes/properties for the greater good of the community.
Hi. Alone on Valentine's Day? Live adult chat
Enjoy
Hi all!. Use this search engine for best result: BD search Find all you need in your area!
Enjoy
Hello
For those who worries about health
Tramadol, Xanax, Phentermine, Skelaxin, Viagra, and all that is necessary.
Only for adults!
To not enter if to you is not present 18!
Welcome to Love Chat, Movie Pages & Gallery.
Bye
I wonder , were to find boyfriend to my sister? Joke:)
My online friends propose this link to use -TOP10 - As for me, I think life is now!!!
It's a game for you............ Try to find adult partner in your area !
- JOIN FREE - easy & fun
The anti-impotency treatment you are going to adopt just after being identified with erectile dysfunction is not likely to yield any fruitful result if you do not abide by the precautionary instructions recommended by the physician. For instance, after procuring viagra online if you administer cheap viagra without providing the necessary details to the doctor with regard to your medical history then there are chances that viagra intake might prove disastrous to you. Most particularly, if you are taking nitrate based medicine such as nitroglycerin patches to treat a specific medical condition you should inform the doctor immediately so that he doesn’t suggest you to buy viagra. The usage of Viagra by any person using nitrate-based medicines can trigger off health disaster and as such you can definitely avoid the imminent harm by explaining your medical history to the doctor and avoiding to buy viagra online if the drug is not meant for you.
The disease called erectile dysfunction has strengthened its roots among the human breed mainly because of the reason that people are not very willing to share it willingly. These people can get all the information in the ED info sites. Through this information you can do away with their ED.
Es ist Meiner Meinung nach offenbar. Ich berate Ihnen, zu versuchen, in google.com zu suchen cialis 20mg kaufen viagra rezeptfrei [url=http//t7-isis.org]cialis online pharmacy[/url]
Post a Comment
<< Home