Eminent domain and the elitist bent

The recent SCOTUS decision in Kelo vs. The City of New London was an ominous sign that the end of private property is close at hand. Eminent domain was intended to take private property for the public good at a fair market value. Increasing tax revenues, by seizing private property, and handing over to private developers at a lower price than the developer could acquire the same property at, is not what is considered for the public good. At least it was not until this decision. It was interesting to see that the Court's liberal wing was in favor, as they claim to be for the common citizen, yet is is that citizen that will be most negatively impacted by this decision. The properties in question were not blighted. They are the homes of middle class Americans. Clearly the City of New London craves the increased tax revenues over the civil rights of the residents. There is an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Times that delves into why this decision will impact the selection of the next SCOTUS nominees.

' In the recent Supreme Court case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al., the elaborate 20 page majority opinion of the Supreme Court is one of the most eloquent, articulate, intellectual efforts to ever rationalize or try to cerebrally legitimize the forced transfer from the legal, legitimate owner of non-blighted property to someone who is in greater favor with the ruler of the area. It is something that our high court can point to with pride that they almost make it sound "fair" that private property can be taken from one legitimate owner and forcibly transferred to one who offers greater financial rewards to the ruler.

What a great day for the intellectual superiority of our highest court as it gets a "10" rating in the field of mental gymnastics, even from the Russian judge, but what a very sad day for truth, justice and what used to be the American way!

Though the Supreme Court has previously and improperly cited evolving international opinion as a basis for their rewriting U.S. constitutional law, the Kelo case is a "devolution" of precedent. This court obviously has a bent toward rationale that may be overheard at international cocktail parties or receptions from foreign elitists who believe that they know better than the Neanderthals in American and wish to substitute their neo-intellectual notions for the will of the American people. However, their Napoleonic ideas have no business replacing the ingenious provisions that succinctly comprise our Constitution.'

Increasingly the Court has been citing laws of foreign lands in their decision making process. That is not their constitutional mandate. The Court has no business incorporating international elitist law or opinion into their decisions. Their mandate is to adhere to the Constitution.

' Our tripartite government was designed with checks and balances on each branch. The president can veto acts of Congress and the Congress can also override the president. However, with an activist Supreme Court as we now have, the high court trumps all else including constitutional amendments since they can interpret those by inserting language that is not there.

Once again, it is made abundantly clear that judges appointed to the Supreme Court must not only be intelligent, but they must understand that the greatness of this nation's past lies in common sense, not in an elitist oligarchy that holds itself unaccountable to anyone.'

This is all the more reason that strict constructionists need to be appointed to the Court. - Sailor