True Justice

David Souter is one of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices who decided that any local government can take your home if someone else offers to provide more tax revenue on the property. Justice Souter's home is at 34 Cilley Hill Road, Weare, New Hampshire. Now, in what is considered supreme irony by many, and delicious retribution by others, a developer has proposed taking Souter's home and building a hotel on the site.

Proposal: Replace Souter's home with 'Lost Liberty Hotel'
by Associated Press - June 29 2005 - Stamford Advocate

WEARE, N.H. -- Following a Supreme Court ruling last week that gave local governments power to seize private property, someone has suggested taking over Justice David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turning it into a hotel.

"The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare," Logan Darrow Clements of California wrote in a letter faxed to town officials in Weare on Tuesday.

The following is in a press release from the developer

"The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

Blogs, both conservative and liberal, have been delighted with the idea of the hotel. Many are proposing that they take up a collection on the Internet to fund the museum part of the development. With this ruling the supreme court has alienated everbody, liberal and conservative alike. With the ruling allowing any rich person to seize the property of the poor, the justices seem to think that everyone in America wants them to take over control of all government decisions that support tax increases. All it really proves is how out of touch with America this court is.

Souter is almost certainly going to need to move. I love it!

Court Orders 4 Reporters to Reveal Sources

By Carol D. Leonnig - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - Washington Post

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that although journalists have a qualified privilege to protect anonymous sources, it was outweighed by two key factors in Lee's case: The reporters had information central to his lawsuit, and Lee's attorneys had sufficiently exhausted their efforts to find the alleged leakers ...

The arrogance of journalists is imploding as the abuses they have long practiced under their proclaimed immunity from revealing sources is finally being addressed by the courts.

The reporters in the Wen Ho Lee case have not been sentenced yet, but their "contempt of court" sentence is unlikely to be much less than the sentences in a similar case. Reporters in that case (the Victoria Plame investigation) implied that their leaks came from the White House while insisting they did not have to say where they came from. The Supreme Court has allowed to stand a lower court ruling that they must testify. They are facing 18 months in jail for contempt of court.

The Supreme Court is showing again that they alone will determine what rights anyone has, with little concern for the constitution or law. Even as they have shredded laws passed by the legislatures, and by the people of various states, they are now shredding their own previous rulings of what the Constitution means.

You may have heard of their idiot ruling allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed or not displayed, based on the intent of the person intitiating the display, as divined by a judge reading the mind of that person. Who can honestly read anothers mind? This is the determination of what is legal, what someone is thinking when they take an act?

The problem we have today is that the courts are arrogantly seizing control of every aspect of life, and requiring that everyone come into court for permission to take any action, or face punishment for not guessing what the courts would have ruled.

I don't like reporters and am glad to see their powers to destroy others with false accusations curtailed. That does not mean that this ruling, essentially giving more power to courts that need to be slapped down themselves, is deserving of any respect.

Supremely Absurd

by John Podhoretz - June 28th, 2005 - New York Post

Basically, says Justice David Souter, the only way to tell whether your Ten Commandments display is allowable is by putting it up in a state building, getting sued and having some judge make a ruling on it.

That is a correct assessment of these supreme court rulings on the Ten Commandments. That is the exact meaning of many of the rulings we have seen in recent years. The supreme court justices are not fools though. They have a clear and obvious intent to these rulings. It is not liberal. It is not conservative. It is totalitarian.

To think they truly meant these rulings to be anything else, you would have to think that they really meant the following to be possible; "Thus, along with all its many powers, the Supreme Court has now granted the American judiciary the power to read minds and discern feelings from a distance."

They don't really think judges can read minds or discern feelings. They just think we are so stupid we will believe they can. They aren't fools. They think we are.

High Court Expands Reach of Eminent Domain

Associated Press - June 23rd, 2005 - Fox News Channel

WASHINGTON — Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

If an economic incentive by a business is all that is required to sieze your home, then the limitation on the "takings clause" in our Constitution is meaningless. The limitation specifically stated is for "public use" only. "Public use" has now been defined as government saying "I want it". How corrupt is this court?

The Supreme Court has already agreed that it is not a violation of the equal protection clause for government to give tax breaks to a company or individual for intangible benefits to society that only that government can see and which no one else gets. Nor is their any recompense if the hypothesized benefits never occur. What is to stop government from taking your property for hypothesized tax benefits, and simultaneously giving the beneficiary of the seized property tax breaks for compensation of the higher taxes that they are paying on your former property?

Think this is not likely? They are already doing something similar. Check out the following article.

Couple Was Not Paid For Seized Land
By Kevin Leininger - June 16, 2005 - Fort Wayne News Sentinel

“The Fifth Amendment says the government can’t take your property without just compensation, but that’s exactly what the city is doing,” said Diana Kruse, who has lived at 6930 Rothman Road since 1967. “We (raised) seven kids here, and the property was to be passed down to them. Now I feel like my heart’s been cut out, like we’ve been raped and robbed.”
----
Because the Kruses have appealed the condemnation approved May 18 by the Board of Works, Allen Superior Court Judge Stanley Levine will decide whether things such as a new fence and the ability to trade a septic tank for city sewers is adequate compensation for nearly three-quarters of an acre of what is becoming prime real estate.

What the justices did not address is whether it is legal to seize your home if the economic incentive is simply a bribe to a government official by someone who wants your home. With the current ruling that is certainly going to happen at some point. However I am sure that that will be addressed in a future case and we will find out how corrupt our court system has become.

Change U.S. Law On Anchor Babies

By Al Knight - 06/22/2005 - Denver Post

Anchor babies, for those not yet familiar with the term, is the description given to babies of illegal immigrants who are delivered in the United States. These babies, under current interpretation of U.S. law, automatically become U.S. citizens and most qualify immediately for a variety of benefits, including Medicaid. Over time, they can open the door to citizenship to other family members.

The important word here is interpretation. As usual the courts have not "interpreted" the law, they have made new law by perverting the Constitution and granting "rights" to illegal aliens.

Proof is the following reality. If a child is born here to a citizen of a foreign country, and the parent was sent here by that country legally, their child is NOT a U.S. citizen. I repeat, the child of a Mexican diplomat born here does not become a citizen. However if the Mexican parent is here ILLEGALLY, then the child becomes a citizen .... according to democrat Judges. Even if it is the clear policy of that foreign country to invade us, the child is a citizen.

This "right" was created by a liberal judge from San Antonio Texas, who was an activist in granting rights to illegal aliens. He was a Mexican "immigrant" who was himself a racist hater of "gringos"

Whether the invasion is for economic reasons (and a slow motion "reconquista" as is happening) or open invasion should be an issue for political debate to decide. Granting these invaders citizenship should be a political decision, since the parents are here illegally. However our tyrannical judges have decided they are a totalitarian power and the legislature cannot decide the issue. The courts have removed this power from the legislature and seized it for their personal perogatives. It is in liberal judges interest to protect these illegals since they vote democrat.

This arrogant usurption of power is un-Constitutional. Since the legislatures are dominated by lawyers nothing will ever be done to stop the seizure of totalitarian power by the courts. As a citizen you are powerless. Only lawyers and judges have a say when the legislature is emasculated by judges and lawyers.

The writer of this article says that the law must be changed and the courts have ruled that the democratically elected legislature cannot change it. Welcome to America 2005.

Supreme Court Sides With Government

.... In Second Land Rights Case
by Gina Holland - June 20th, 2005 - Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Monday that people who lose state lawsuits claiming the government improperly took their property cannot count on federal courts for help.

Land rights is a major issue at the high court this year, and so far the justices have made it tougher for people to win lawsuits claiming that local and state laws amount to an unconstitutional "taking."

Property rights are being eroded by our courts. Even as the Supreme Court finds unenumerated, hidden and unwritten rights to kill unborn children up to the last second before they take a breath, it ignores the rights specifically enumerated, not hidden and clearly written in our Constitution.

You no longer own your property. This case says that any local government can tell you what to do with your property and how much you can charge for that service. If you refuse to provide the service for the prices they require, they can punish you with huge fines until you comply. All that is required is for a plurality to get a law passed.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court this is not a "taking". According to the U.S. Supreme Court, this is not "slavery". According to the U.S. Superme Court, this is "justice".

"First they came for the Communists
.... but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Gypsies and the Trade Unionists
.... but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews
.... but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me
.... there was no one left to speak out for me."
-- Martin Niemoller --

Bush Poised to Nominate Dozens For Judgeships

By Peter Baker - Friday, June 3, 2005 - Washington Post

The Bush administration has been vetting candidates for 30 more federal district and appeals court vacancies that have been left open for months while the Senate battled over previous nominations stalled by Democrats. Now that Democrats have agreed not to filibuster any new candidates except in "extraordinary circumstances," Republicans are eager to test the proposition.

I predict the democrats will not let this happen. Get ready for more unconstitutional fillibusters. The democrats have declared war on the Republican party and will never allow these judges to be approved. Howard Dean has claimed the "Republicans .... have never made an honest living in their lives". This is in addition to his earlier claims that they are "evil" and "brain dead". "Nazi" and fascist" are just two of the terms regularly used to attack Republicans (even though both of these terms describe versions of socialists, not people who espouse free enterpise, an irony lost on the socialists who use the terms).

The number one goal of the democratic party is to assure that judges can make law on their behalf. They have become much more adamant about it now that they are losing elections. They realize that if Republicans control the legislature, the only way to implement their socialist agenda is through the courts. The viciousness of their attacks is driven by the fear that they will lose the ability to legislate from the bench. That this is illegal and undemocratic seems not to bother them at all.