Posted by
Frigglesnitz on Friday, October 06, 2006 4:48:07 PM
"Supremacist judges." That is an appropriate designation of those Supreme Court judges who opined that "eminent domain" could include takeovers for private enterprise.
The first thing that came to mind when I heard about this travesty was that Wal-Mart or a similar retailer would come along with a "need" for the properties of those judges who voted against the property owners in Kelo. Surely a Wal-Mart could bring in a great deal more revenue than the mere real estate taxes on the homes of those judges.
Talk about justice.
Per Ms. Schlafly’s October 2, 2006 column, "Conservatives on the march for private property," the justices "thought they could evolve the U.S. Constitution’s words "public use," which would include a highway or a public building, into the words "public purpose," which is defined to include transferring private property of lower-income people to higher-income people who will pay higher taxes,..."
Most average human beings are not lawyers. However, most average human beings have sense enough to know the difference between "public" and "private." One may conclude then that these Supreme Court justices (those Supremacists) do not have sense enough to know what average human beings know.
President Bush frequently speaks disparagingly of judges who legislate from the bench, but that is exactly what happened in Kelo, as well as in recent well-known cases not designed to make the President pleased.
Pursuant to Ms. Schlafly’s column referenced above, many states have jumped on or are jumping on a bandwagon being steered by those very same average people who are indeed capable of knowing the difference between "public" and "private." Those very same average people are in my view stomping justifiably all over the Supreme Court’s Kelo opinion via state legislatures who can read the handwriting on the wall. After all, how many average people must be dislodged or displaced before the so-called "Supreme" court hears the mighty roar of the unwashed masses?
One of the best things to come out of this legal travesty was the statement of Justice Thomas, who wrote that "Something has gone seriously awry with this court's interpretation of the Constitution."
Something has indeed gone very seriously awry with that court's interpretation of the Constitution. Something has indeed gone very seriously awry with those "Supremacist" justices. Possibly some form of dementia, or possibly some deficiency of mental acuity. Perhaps it is time for some of them to retire someplace and write their deathless memoirs – and hope that while in the process of such endeavors they are not uprooted for the "public purpose."
I agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Schlafly that "... the U.S. Supreme Court is fallible and we have every right to criticize and work to overturn wrong decisions made by supremacist judges who think they can rewrite the U.S. Constitution."