On June 5, 2005, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled by a 5 to 4 margin that the city government of New London, CT, could legally take their private citizen’s homes away and deliver the land to real estate developers for the sole purpose of building a shopping mall.
The ruling interpreted, er…. legislated, that the 5th Amendment’s Eminent Domain Clause could mean that our government could take private property away from one private citizen and award it to another. It is worth emphasizing that this was not an eminent domain case of the government acquiring land because a much-needed highway could not be established by any other route through a city. This was a case of the government confiscating land from evicted citizens and delivering it to developers so that the developers could get rich and the state could increase their kitty benefiting from an increase in sales’ taxes.
This ruling was so absurd, that consistently liberal judge Sandra Day O’Connor broke with her left-wing cohorts on the court and actually wrote the dissenting opinion:
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party…"
Thankfully, three months later, Chief Justice John Roberts would be appointed to lead the bench, followed by Samuel Alito a few months later making ridiculous rulings such as this less probably.
So why am I reviewing this case’s history? To show you how much our Supreme Court has run-a-muck in the last fifty years. This case easily illustrates this belief to almost anyone because it is not dealing with a polarizing, emotional issue that is super-charged. Everyone can relate to the government knocking on their door and serving them with an eviction notice for a shopping mall.
This is why Supreme Court appointments are so essential to all of our rights. It is the most significant and lasting imprint that a Presidency can leave on history.
I am extremely thankful to President Bush for keeping us safe from terrorist attacks for the 7 years that followed 9-11. But I am equally thankful, if not more, for his appointments of Justices Roberts and Alito whom will keep our liberties safe for the next 30 years. As Uncle Billy said in It’s a Wonderful Life, "Not every heel is [overseas…]"
President Obama now has the luxury of leaving his mark on history.
Some specific thoughts I have on this appointment:
I don't think it will come before his Notre Dame commencement speech. (It still hurts me to say that sentence.) Obama is not going to stoke the fires and create photo-op's of protesters for this event by nominating a militant pro-abortion judge just prior to the event.
Secondly, with many of his recent cabinet appointments going up in flames, I think he will be looking for someone with absolutely no baggage. His administration can't afford to have another public embarrassment and the pick will be completely vetted on everything from personal taxes to wild college nights.
I think the name that everyone is floating, Sonia Sotomayor, will not be the pick. She has a very controversial caught-on-tape statement that judges actually "make policy from the bench" that would cause Obama great grief during a confirmation hearing. She prefaces this damning statement with, "I know I shouldn’t say this on tape…"
A final thought is that there is very little chance that the judge will not be a liberal activist. A pro-abortion, gay rights; a make-up-the-Constitution-as-you-go type.
So with my rationale, I am basically expecting that Obama will nominate the most militant liberal judge with the most squeaking clean life.
My guess is that it will be Diane Wood.
Justice Diane Wood is the Armageddon scenario for this appointment. She has been a disaster for the pro-life cause with rulings for partial birth abortion and using RICO laws to prevent peaceful abortion protests. My prediction is that she will get the nod. I hope I am wrong.