The Arrogance of Judicial Tyranny
Frank Salvato
July 02, 2005
I don’t think that I would be too off the mark if I said the Founding Fathers and their compatriots would have stormed the Supreme Court Building, torches and pitchforks in hand, looking for the five justices who championed the Kelo v. City of New London ruling. I have no doubt they would have found the court’s decision tyrannical, the ruling more consistent with the court of the King than those charged with upholding the Constitution of free men.
The ruling is so atrocious that I felt the need to contact the justices. But while I was paging through the US Supreme Court’s website it became apparent, the justices don’t feel the need to afford “We the People” access to them. In fact, the only email opportunity on the entire webpage was to let them know of technical difficulties.
The last I checked the Supreme Court is indeed a branch of our government. So, it is quite disturbing that the justices make it next to impossible to contact them. Could it be that the Judicial Branch of our government is so arrogant that they will not be bothered by those for whom they work?
To summarize the ruling while avoiding legalese, the Supreme Court (in particular Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens) decided that local governments can seize private property in favor of private development for the sole purpose of generating tax revenue. They contend that generating tax revenue is a “common good.” To be fair they also said that individual states could restrict that power and at least 10 already do.
In today’s political climate it takes something quite remarkable for Republicans and Democrats to come together. But as I navigated the halls of the Longworth and Rayburn buildings on Capitol Hill last week it was obvious that the Supreme Court’s decision had left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, and in Washington DC that’s a hard thing to do!
This ruling stems directly from socialist ideology. It allows local governments to redistribute wealth as they see fit under the pretense that it benefits the masses. This is about as far away from the idea of liberty as one can get.
Picture the home in which you were brought up. Your Mother and Father inherited the house and the land from your Grandparents and they from their parents. The neighborhood has changed over the years but they still have a nice, well maintained house on a nice piece of land. It overlooks a beautiful scene as do the properties and houses of their neighbors. Throughout your life you have always expected to live there in your later years and hoped to one day pass that land on to your children upholding a tradition into the fourth generation.
But wait, the town in which your parents’ house is located had an election and the new mayor and board want to make something of this sleepy little town. They are approached by a mega-developer with visions of a nice resort hotel overlooking a beautiful scene complete with a golf course, restaurants and a spa. The point that wins the support of the town’s elected officials is that the resort would generate tax revenue which, overwhelmed by the dollar signs, they could then spend at will.
Now, I’ll give you three guesses as to where that beautiful scenic view is located. That’s right, the town is now looking at the property that sits under your parents’ house and the houses of your parents’ neighbors. Thanks to the 2005 Supreme Court town officials can now take your parents land even if they don’t want to sell. In fact, the town will most likely confiscate their property paying a fraction of its worth for compensation.
This scenario illustrates the redistribution of wealth from your parents and from your family – from you – to the people of your parents’ town via tax revenue. The profits the new property owners and wealthy developers accrue from what used to be your parents’ land only adds insult to injury. It is no less than theft. You get a pittance while big business and the newly defined “common good” profit at your expense. How very socialist.
Local governments are going to manipulate this decision to the furthest extent possible. Already mayors in major metropolitan areas are maneuvering to attain large tracts of private property under the new definition of eminent domain. And they will snatch that land whether the owners wants to sell it or not. They will seize the land, “legally” depriving the land owner of personal wealth, courtesy of the US Supreme Court.
I will go out on a limb and suggest that the Kennedy compound at Hyannisport and David Souter’s home in New Hampshire will escape the socialist redistribution of wealth. They have enough money to buy the lawyers to circumvent being lumped in with the rest of us mere taxpayers. Still, I would love for the Hyannisport building inspector to slap a “red tag” on Kennedy’s front door so the next strip mall to house a Chucky Cheese could be built.
The Kelo decision usurps the liberties of every land owner in the country regardless of whether a state law prohibits it or not. The Supreme Court hasn’t blurred the line between the public common good and the private sector, they have obliterated it.
Even Dred Scott would agree; Kelo v. City of New London is perhaps the worst, pro-socialist decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court.
From town president and forest preserve officials to your Congressmen and Senators in Washington DC, everyone should write their elected officials to protest this ruling. Demand that they finally take a stand against judicial activism. I would tell you to write the Supreme Court justices as well but they are too arrogant and too elitist to allow the “unwashed masses” access. They’re obviously unwilling to be bothered with any concerns of ours, the “useful idiots” whose property rights are now subordinate to the almighty tax dollar.
Related Reading:
Kelo v. City of New London
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf
US Supreme Court of the United States of America
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/index.html
Frank Salvato is the managing editor for TheRant.us. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, socio-political education project. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor and numerous radio shows. His pieces have been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are periodically featured in The Washington Times as well as other national and international publications. He can be contacted at oped@therant.us
The ruling is so atrocious that I felt the need to contact the justices. But while I was paging through the US Supreme Court’s website it became apparent, the justices don’t feel the need to afford “We the People” access to them. In fact, the only email opportunity on the entire webpage was to let them know of technical difficulties.
The last I checked the Supreme Court is indeed a branch of our government. So, it is quite disturbing that the justices make it next to impossible to contact them. Could it be that the Judicial Branch of our government is so arrogant that they will not be bothered by those for whom they work?
To summarize the ruling while avoiding legalese, the Supreme Court (in particular Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens) decided that local governments can seize private property in favor of private development for the sole purpose of generating tax revenue. They contend that generating tax revenue is a “common good.” To be fair they also said that individual states could restrict that power and at least 10 already do.
In today’s political climate it takes something quite remarkable for Republicans and Democrats to come together. But as I navigated the halls of the Longworth and Rayburn buildings on Capitol Hill last week it was obvious that the Supreme Court’s decision had left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, and in Washington DC that’s a hard thing to do!
This ruling stems directly from socialist ideology. It allows local governments to redistribute wealth as they see fit under the pretense that it benefits the masses. This is about as far away from the idea of liberty as one can get.
Picture the home in which you were brought up. Your Mother and Father inherited the house and the land from your Grandparents and they from their parents. The neighborhood has changed over the years but they still have a nice, well maintained house on a nice piece of land. It overlooks a beautiful scene as do the properties and houses of their neighbors. Throughout your life you have always expected to live there in your later years and hoped to one day pass that land on to your children upholding a tradition into the fourth generation.
But wait, the town in which your parents’ house is located had an election and the new mayor and board want to make something of this sleepy little town. They are approached by a mega-developer with visions of a nice resort hotel overlooking a beautiful scene complete with a golf course, restaurants and a spa. The point that wins the support of the town’s elected officials is that the resort would generate tax revenue which, overwhelmed by the dollar signs, they could then spend at will.
Now, I’ll give you three guesses as to where that beautiful scenic view is located. That’s right, the town is now looking at the property that sits under your parents’ house and the houses of your parents’ neighbors. Thanks to the 2005 Supreme Court town officials can now take your parents land even if they don’t want to sell. In fact, the town will most likely confiscate their property paying a fraction of its worth for compensation.
This scenario illustrates the redistribution of wealth from your parents and from your family – from you – to the people of your parents’ town via tax revenue. The profits the new property owners and wealthy developers accrue from what used to be your parents’ land only adds insult to injury. It is no less than theft. You get a pittance while big business and the newly defined “common good” profit at your expense. How very socialist.
Local governments are going to manipulate this decision to the furthest extent possible. Already mayors in major metropolitan areas are maneuvering to attain large tracts of private property under the new definition of eminent domain. And they will snatch that land whether the owners wants to sell it or not. They will seize the land, “legally” depriving the land owner of personal wealth, courtesy of the US Supreme Court.
I will go out on a limb and suggest that the Kennedy compound at Hyannisport and David Souter’s home in New Hampshire will escape the socialist redistribution of wealth. They have enough money to buy the lawyers to circumvent being lumped in with the rest of us mere taxpayers. Still, I would love for the Hyannisport building inspector to slap a “red tag” on Kennedy’s front door so the next strip mall to house a Chucky Cheese could be built.
The Kelo decision usurps the liberties of every land owner in the country regardless of whether a state law prohibits it or not. The Supreme Court hasn’t blurred the line between the public common good and the private sector, they have obliterated it.
Even Dred Scott would agree; Kelo v. City of New London is perhaps the worst, pro-socialist decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court.
From town president and forest preserve officials to your Congressmen and Senators in Washington DC, everyone should write their elected officials to protest this ruling. Demand that they finally take a stand against judicial activism. I would tell you to write the Supreme Court justices as well but they are too arrogant and too elitist to allow the “unwashed masses” access. They’re obviously unwilling to be bothered with any concerns of ours, the “useful idiots” whose property rights are now subordinate to the almighty tax dollar.
Related Reading:
Kelo v. City of New London
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf
US Supreme Court of the United States of America
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/index.html
Frank Salvato is the managing editor for TheRant.us. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, socio-political education project. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor and numerous radio shows. His pieces have been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are periodically featured in The Washington Times as well as other national and international publications. He can be contacted at oped@therant.us
Print
Email
