Party At Souter's!

[Mike]

Approaching their Summer haitus, the Supreme Court whipped off about five decisions in the last week or so, some important, some obvious, and some vividly inconsistant. Though rather typical of Scotus, one of these stands out as the most archane interpretation of the Constitution in the post-Gideon era. What I am referring, of course, is Kelo, et al., v. the City of New London--a case that is as contravercial as it is landmark. However, I am not here to report the news, so I'm going to keep the summary brief.

Around 1998 and 1999, the city of New London, Connecticut, in South Eastern Connecticut, was seeking to revitalize a number of neighbors hoods in one of the largest towns on the Long Island Sound. Falling on relative financial hardships (relative to the rest of the State of Connecticut; the richest state in the Union), the City of New London planned to seize some 150 properties for what was supposed to be urban revitalization. Of course, there was nothing to revitalize, so the city struck a deal with Pfizer Corporation, the drug company with a pharmeceutical plant just south of the Groton Navy Sub base, the largest submarine base in the US, that Pfizer could build a plant on the land in conjuction with a privately owned, but publically contracted building company. The building company, per right of eminent domain--the power of government to evict landowners from their property against their will--paid the families to leave their home, as expressed in the Bill of Rights, pushed for by Anti-Federalists in lue of England's compulsory purchase act. A number of home owners did not want to move and called out the City of New London on their mishap. State and Federal governments cannot use eminent domain unless it is being used for a public service--a road, legitimate urban revitalization, or public facility. This was the first time in US history that a State government successfully managed to evict a number of citizens per eminent domain when the property was being handed to private citizens. Led by Susette Kelo who owned a small house on the Thames River, she and the others brought the case to the US Supreme Court.

This past week, the majority opinion was delivered by Justice Stevens: The City of New London, CT could evict Kelo, et al, from their houses without using the land for a public service. In concurrence with Paul Stevens is the typical lot of SCOTUS-Liberals, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Dave Souter, Steve Breyer, and Anthony Kennedy, who determined that as long as the land, owned privately, is put to a public use, it is permissible. But what public use is a workout facility for the Pfizer corporation, exclusive to only Pfizer employees, you might ask... Well, they claim that the tax payouts from Pfizer and the jobs created running the facility will benefit the community ... To the point of forcefully removing people from their households.

As Justice Scalia points out, this eliminates the distinction between public and private use of property, and as good old Sandra Day agrees, it's the reverse robin-hood mentality--taking from the poor, and giving to the rich. Now, though I did mention the "L" word a paragraph up, I should note that many of the staunchest internet-liberals (at least, at the forums I go to) are against this ruling, and rightfully so. The courtroom decision, however, was delivered by the Supreme Court liberals, leaving many Americans on the left with a feeling of dismay--as they relied on these four as the beacon of sanity, one netizen remarking how previously, he referred to the five who favored Bush in the 2000 election decision as "the gang of 5", but now, the group has been extended to "the gang of 9."

This will surely be a hotly disputed ruling for years to come, but it will also shape the 2006 and 2008 elections, as liberals scamper to clean it up or make it sound as smooth as possible, while the conservatives, those who forced compensation for eminent domain in the first place, attempt to push it to the forefront. Many of America's left were relieved that this ruling almost coincided with a contraversial speech delivered by President Bush this week, as it was a means to divert attention from yet another display of judicial activism and judicial jurisdiction, to our President's follies of speech.

However, there is, as always, some shred of fun coming from this case. Despite the hundreds left homeless, broke, and absent of their their most worthy financial investment... the CEO of Freestar Media (Limited Liability Corp.), Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a memo to the town of Weare, NH. Though, one might ask, what does Weare, NH have to do with anything? The only 'conservative' sharing the majority opinion, and the swing vote of the case, David H. Souter, holds recessed residence on a small farm in Weare, New Hampshire. In the Fax, Clements told the town of Weare that he would like to start eminent domain preceedings that will condemn Souter's farm, and open the "Lost Liberty Hotel" and "Just Desserts Cafe" on the premise. A small army of conservative libertarians have made the treck to Weare to protest Souter's decision during the time that he usually takes to escape his judicial duties.

The wonderful people of the interweb, of course, have continued to pursue Clements demands, with one individual opening up an ePledge on PledgeBank.com, where internet users will "pledge" to spend seven days in the tiny town of Weare, NH., buying local gas, eating at local restaurants, drinking local beer, and having a good time that can only be found in the middle of rural nowhere... All in the name of economic revitalization. Though only asking for 100 pledges, more than 670 have made the decision to dedicate a portion of their time and money to Weare, NH., to the Lost Liberty Hotel for their summer vacations. Being a conservative libertarian, living just 70 miles south of Souter's cosy cottage, and also working in the New London Registry of Deeds on occassion, I feel it my civic duty to help the town of Weare prepare to be revitalized!

Of the four basic rights that the founding fathers sought to preserve in this Union, we have lost three of them. The right to life, the right to property, the right to income. The only one that remains is your right to religious expression... While the three others were cast away by judicial activism and judicial jurisdiction ... The only two restrictions on the Supreme Court.