Leahy: Bush Stacking The Court
Written by YellowJacket on January 24th, 2006According to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), his vote against Judge Alito to become Justice Alito is an attempt to prevent Bush from “packing the court.” Spewing out a great deal of doom-and-gloom fire and brimstone, invoking secret NSA wiretaps and even the loss of OBL at Tora Bora, and stating that Bush has a consistent goal to minimize the rights of Americans, Leahy made the astounding remark that Bush is trying to stack the Supreme Court so that it will not hinder his policies.
Quite frankly, Sen. Leahy, right now some Originalist SCOTUS packing is exactly what we need. The SCOTUS recently demonstrated its departure from its duty to protect the Constitution in the horrific Kelo vs. New London ruling. According to the wise old sages on the SC, a local government cannot only declare privately held property to be eminent domain for public use (infrastructure, etc), which is allowed for in the Constitution, but can also deem it condemned over the private owner’s objections simply because another private entity wants to build something that will bring in more tax revenue. I fail to see why that doesn’t outrage you, Sen. Leahy.
In 1973, the Supreme Court trampled the Founding Fathers’ Federalist intentions by overruling all 50 states’ rights and giving women everywhere, despite what their respective states believed, the right to have an abortion - a right that was not derived from the Constitution, but from mere judicial fiat. Read the Constitution - it isn’t in there. Even pro-choice scholars agree that Roe v. Wade was an abysmal ruling by legal standards. I don’t care what you think about abortion, Sen. Leahy; you claim that this court is “mainstream” when it shows disdain for private property and for Constitutional Reserved states’ rights. Some movement to the Right is exactly what this court needs. To claim that it is currently mainstream is a joke.
24
PM
I agree. Roe v. Wade was certainly a poorly decided case, and I say that from a relatively pro-choice perspective. Eminent domain, however, doesn’t seem to me to be that bad of a decision. Of course, I don’t want property rights taken away, but I think the make-up of the Court and who vote for/against that decisions shows its legitimacy. It wasn’t a liberals vs. conservatives case. That brings me to the conclusion that it was a judicial, unbiased conclusion. I think, however, that it demonstrates a fatal flaw in the Constitution. It isn’t the SC’s job to fix that, however. It’s Congress’.
24
PM
“…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” - U.S. Constitution, Amendment V
Are you kidding me? The “flaw” was in the minds of the justices who think that public use means ANOTHER private entity. No, the Constitution is clear in this case. public use means public roads, public highways, public schools, etc. No government in tne U.S. has the right to forcibly take my property and give it to a business developer or another private entity.
25
AM
“I think, however, that it demonstrates a fatal flaw in the Constitution.”
The Constitution can be twisted to say anything I suppose. When in the hell are people going to at the very minimum take the time and effort to understand what the Constitution says and means? Taking someones house and giving it to a developer by court order simply on the reasoning that higher tax revenues will be created is flat out tyranny. The Constitution specifically forbids this by stating that compensation must be for PUBLIC USE. Since private use is left unsaid that brings us to the X Amendment that reserves other rights to the people. It is as unconstitutional as any act of tyranny by the government can get, but enough people lack the education to even get excited about it.
26
PM
Another great article. Hope you are doing as well in your classes at Ga Tech as you are in writing these articles.
Thanks for the insights
26
PM
Thanks Dad… I can assure you GT is going as well as the blogging.