Posted on 08/22/2005 11:35:29 AM PDT by nutmeg
(Washington-AP, Aug. 22, 2005 12:05 PM) _ The Supreme Court, given a chance to revisit a heavily criticized ruling, refused Monday to reconsider its decision giving local governments more power to seize people's homes for economic development.
So contentious was the court's narrow 5-4 ruling in the so-called eminent domain case earlier this year that some critics launched a campaign to seize Justice David Souter's farmhouse in New Hampshire to build a luxury hotel. Others singled out Justice Stephen Breyer's vacation home in the same state for use as a park.
Both Souter and Breyer voted on the prevailing side. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who did not, sharply criticized her colleagues at the time. She said in a minority opinion that the ruling favored the well-heeled over the less fortunate.
In addition, legislators in some 25 states are considering changing their eminent domain laws to soften the impact.
Justices did not comment Monday in refusing to reconsider the case, which had been expected because requests for a reconsideration of rulings are rarely granted.
(Excerpt) Read more at wtnh.com ...
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
These guys are glutons for punishment.
I guess they could not stomach eating crow.
HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY AUTH-OORRRITTTY. I AM LORD SOUTER, er, JUSTICE SOUTER AND MY WORD HAS BEEN WRRRRITTEN, SO SHALL IT BE.
They are "infallible". Does not compute, does not compute.
Perhaps its time to "reconsider" the Supreme Court.
Did anyone expect something different? What, admit they were wrong just because a few people are mad at them?
LOL... Actually I shouldn't laugh. This is all rather sad, isn't it?
Actually, as long as we permit them to render idiotic decisions, and allow our elected Congressmen in their lucrative sinecures to sit around and do nothing to rock the boat, WE are eating the crow.
What would be the point in reconsidering the decision? Wait till one of these 5 asshats resigns, then reconsider it with Bush's replacement on the court.
I think it is time to start removing some of these so-called "justices" from the court. The Congress does have the right and the authority to do so. If memory serves, it has been done in the past. Furthermore, I think that the Kelo decision should be cited as the reason. The supremes who ruled against the citizens in Kelo, obviously are illiterate. I mean either they cannot read what the Fifth Amendment says, or they are willfully ignoring it. Which to my mind would constitute an act of treason. Either way, these clowns have got to go.
USSC: You WILL respect our AUTHORITAH!
None of our elected Congresscritters want to make the kind of hard decisions necessary to protect our Republic and defend our rights.
To do so would result in alienating powerful political interests - the Trial Court Attorneys, the NEA, various civil "rights" thugs, etc.
If they alientate these groups, they might loose the sinecures they feel they are entitlted to, along with all the associated privileges and benefits.
Elected office was never meant to be a profession, and this a perfect example of why it shouldn't.
The only immediate cure is term limits - two terms in Congress and you're out. Give somebody else a chance.
roger that
Rendering a decision that OVERTURNS 225 years of presidents is willful misbehavior, and their convoluted reinterpretation is unconstitutional, therefore an impeachable offense. The constitution states that judges may be impeached if they misbehave, a bar that is much lower than that applied to the President.
presidents = precedents
A primary purpose for government is protection of private property rights. Hear John Adams:
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free." - John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787
Three statements by Thomas Jefferson clarify for us what we should demand from our Supreme Court:
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449
"Strained constructions... loosen all the bands of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to George Ticknor, 1817. FE 10:81
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
until one of the 5 members who voted this nonsense in, are replaced (by a republican president), nothing will happen on this. its the president elected in 2008 who will really get to re-shape the court, that's why its so important to stop Hillary.
it can be fixed by having another court simply reverse this decision. an amendment will never happen, and most states want this power - they could care less about individual property rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.