Thursday, June 23, 2005

Supreme Socialist Court

The story is as old as mankind. The land was the King's and the people serfs. The people were in effect renters, if the King needed that land away you went. Finally the people revolted, for many reasons but one important reason was that a man's property was his own and could not be legally taken without due process. It could not be taken from him just because a more powerful man coveted it. That principle just changed today with a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court. If a rich developer wants your house the local Government can seize it, pay you what they think it's worth, and give or sell it to the developer. In this case it was Pfizer Corp. who was seeking to expand its' research center with an adjoining riverfront hotel, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront. The "little people" who did not want to sell their homes, some of which had been in the family for generations, for the betterment of the State were hit with eminent domain power to seize private property if the land is for public use. This of course means for roads, dams, railways, White Sands Missile Range, etc. But how is a private company considered "public use"? Because it will bring in more taxes.

What American would bow to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans. Damn Republicans? Actually the Judges who voted for this were liberal judges John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Anthony Kennedy, AKA "Reagan's greatest mistake". Why would these "champions of the common man" vote for large corporate interests? Because it is a vote for large government's interests, namely tax revenue. The founding fathers who were opposed to unrestrained search and seizure are rolling in their graves.


Jay777 at Stop the ACLU! has a petition up that has two goals:

#1 --Support Supreme Court and lower court judicial nominees who
will uphold the Constitution and thereby defend public
faith and the unborn.
#2 --Ensure that President Bush’s nominees receive an up-or-down
vote in the U.S. Senate.


Shamalama said...

The United States Supreme Court (a.k.a. SCOTUS) yesterday issued a ruling that goes a long way toward destroying private property rights in this country.

The Court said it’s perfectly OK, under the U.S. Constitution, to take your home or business and give it to a politically connected private developer because that developer might be able to produce more taxes and more jobs off of your land.

Remember that it was the liberals on the Supreme Court that made this hideous opinion - and you thought it was the Conservatives that were in bed with Big Business. Hell, most liberal blogs are openly welcomming this new judgement. In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote local officials should decide whether development projects benefit communities over any benefit for the individual. Just sit back and watch the orgy spectacle of wealthy developers and politically powerful business interests using their political connections to ride roughshod over the property rights of poor and middle class property owners. I doubt seriously that you'll ever hear of some politician invoking eminent domain to seize property from a wealthy individual or business to make way for a low income housing project - and you just THOUGHT that Liberals respected those of low income and hated the wealthy. Once someone says "it’s okay to steal the property of a rich man and give it to a poor man" (anyone remember Income Taxes?), it’s not long before the rich man figures out how to exploit that power himself.

Anyone remember when Nikita Khrushchev said, "We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."? Anyone remember when Adolph Hitler said, "Above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual."? Anyone remember when Vladimir Lenin said, "All our lives we fought against exalting the individual"?

Anyone remember when Ted Kennedy said, "We are engaged in a war against individuality"? Anyone remember when Bill Clinton said, "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans"? Anyome remember when Hillary Clinton said, "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society"?

Harry said...

Maybe we need a constitutional amendment? You know, to supplement the one we already have that we thought protected us from this sort of tyranny. When I say "tyranny", I'm not engaging in hyperbole. It really is tyranny for the government to take a person's private property.

The Originalist said...

Why is anyone surprised at this? The liberal wing of the Supreme Court has always had no problem "discovering" previously hidden rights within the Constitution.

It's called "selective interpretation" and is based off of a socialist agenda. Notice that whenever one of these DaVinci Code Rights suddenly appears, it does one of two things. It takes away personal liberties (Upholding the "Assault" Weapons ban, Taking away private property rights) or it is used to belittle American values and historical traditions (Constitutional Abortion Rights, Removal of God from the Courthouse, Religious icons smeared with feces as "free speech").

The Judiciary is the only place left in American Government that the left can use to implement their policies and the Supreme Court answers to nobody (actually they do, but that is another discussion and it hasn't been used in over 200 years) and they are busily pushing a socialist agenda while they can.

Bush had better be damned smart when Rehquist retires and replace him with a strict Originalist. Hopefully one of the moonbat judges will retire or kick off in the next couple of years and Bush can, with that replacement, swing the balance of power to the Right. Hopefully he won't make the same mistake Reagan made and appoint a "moderate."