Men in Black Draw Blank With Reality :: Political News and commentaries

« "The Death of Terri Schiavo" Now Online | Main | Friday Evening Obligatory Natalee Holloway Updates »

June 24, 2005

Men in Black Draw Blank With Reality

Every time I think that I understand what 'over the top' means, the judicial system comes along and moves the bar. The Supreme Court's liberal (yes, I did say liberal) wing plus Reagan appointee Justice Kennedy - voted in bloc to ruled to redefine the 5th amendment - and the blogosphere has gone nuts over it.

Have our "Men in Black" finally slipped over the edge of reality? They refuse to intervene in order to save the life of a disabled woman - God forbid that the State should interfere with the demented rulings of a half-blind, agenda-driven judge in a backwater community in Florida, but golly gee, it's just fine and dandy for the State to take your home so that a developer can build a hotel on your property. Make sense? Not to me!

(image via The right Nation)

AP - "Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes"

In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use. He said the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote. He added that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.

He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing -- David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.

The four-member bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the power of eminent domain for urban renewal projects.

McGehee says we should "Forget the Schiavo case -- if you want to see a ruling that leads to contempt for, and anger at, the judiciary, over the long term - this is the one."

I sure hope he's right!

Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, said that "The Court simply got the law wrong today, and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result. With today's ruling, the poor and middle class will be most vulnerable to eminent domain abuse by government and its corporate allies. The 5-4 split and the nearly equal division among state supreme courts shows just how divided the courts really are. This will not be the last word."

Well, I certainly hope that this isn't the last word; this is yet another example of our courts making the kinds of decisions that if continued, will destroy our nation's system of justice, fairness, and values.

Bullock continued with: "One of the key quotes from the Court to keep in mind today was written by Justice O'Connor. Justice O'Connor wrote, '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.'"

And Teddy Kennedy and his liberal Democratic friends want a say in President Bush's selection for the next Supreme Court nominee?

As Professor Bainbridge remarks: "Bush should just say: "Sorry guys, but the GOP won the Presidency, the Senate, and the House. It's our turn to choose."

So, liberal Democrats, forget it - enough already.

Michelle Malkin says, "it's a devastating blow against homeowners and private property rights."

Clayton Cramer in "Once Again, The Liberals On The Court Show Their Contempt For the Constitution" writes:

"My contempt for the liberal end (or is that the back end?) of the Court grows everyday. There are rights that are explicitly contained in the Constitution, such as this guarantee about private property only being taken for public use--and the Court rationalizes a way around it. The same bunch, however, finds a right to have homosexual sex--a right that is, at best, implicit. What's the point of a written Constitution if the rights that are explicitly there get ignored, and rights that no one bothered to get approved by Congress and ratified by the states, are upheld?

A few weeks back, the liberals on the Supreme Court (plus, inexplicably, Justice Scalia) told us that federal marijuana law applies in the Raich case because drugs that are grown and used at home affect interstate commerce, and if we aren't happy about it, we the people can use the democratic process to fix this problem. But the same hypocrites decided in Lawrence that the completely implicit right (one contradicted by the historical evidence) to have homosexual sex is so important that the people can't be trusted to make laws.

Wizbang makes his feelings quite clear on the matter, begining with Amendment V:

"Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In Wizbangs " humble opinion," the Supreme Court has gone completely daft and treated the Constitution like Charmin. The Amendment clearly states "or shall private property be taken for public use," and the astonishingly simple phrase. "Public use" is NOT synonymous with "private use, but public benefit. He writes, very appropriately, that "This is simple theft by conversion, done under color of law.

And don't think that it's only Americans that think the "Men in Black" have lost it. If you can read Italian, The Right Nation covers the story in Italy.

Other coverage(HT - The Right Nation): RightWingNews, Instapundit, Michelle Malkin, Professor Bainbridge, Indc Journal, Protein Wisdom, Catallarchy, GOP bloggers, Hit and Run, The Anchoress, Volokh Conspiracy, and Captains Quarters.