Kelo and the SCOTUS Delusion

Today marks the third anniversary of one of the most outrageous decisions in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. In Kelo v. City of New London, five black-robed despots ruled that New London, Connecticut, could seize the homes of Suzette Kelo and her neighbors and hand them over to big developers. The decision was a triumph for collectivism, government tyranny, and the capacity of the rich and well-connected to trample the rights of middle-American families.

Siding with the majority and against the Constitutional rights of New London families were David Souter, appointed by George Bush XLI, and Anthony Kennedy, appointed (to my great dismay) by Ronald Reagan.  Justice Kennedy, who embodies perhaps the second-worst nomination of President Reagan’s political career, wrote the concurring opinion.

Many Republicans are quick to raise the specter of a liberal-dominated Supreme Court as (their only) reason to support John McCain. Such a specter was raised as reason to elect XLI. But there is even less cause to believe that Senator McCain, the philosophical vacuum whose name headlines legislation eviscerating the First Amendment, would even know what a strict constructionist is, let alone nominate one to the bench.

Three years later, the Kelo decision still reeks with the stench of government greed and the refusal of Republican-appointed judges to curtail it.

Did you enjoy this post? Sign up for monthly recipes, coupon codes, travel tips, and more delivered straight to your in-box!

* indicates required

View previous updates.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails.

We use Mailchimp as our email service. That means that the information you provide will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing when you click the button below. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here.

5 thoughts on “Kelo and the SCOTUS Delusion

  1. Ms. Carbone, while I agree that Kelo was an abomination, get your facts straight, so you don’t look like an ignoramous. It was the three most conservative justices, Thomas, Rehnquist and Scalia, who opposed Kelo.

  2. Ms. Carbone,

    As always, your analysis is spot on. Your wit and intelligence is superb.

    The reason why I supported Ron Paul and why I ultimately support Bob Barr is because they are the only ones who truly understand that government derives its power from the governed, not the other way around.

    Thank you for you kind comments on the death of my father.

  3. Though I agree that this was an ugly decision, the result of it gave me a huge amount of hope.

    For the first time in years, Congress and legislatures all over the country reacted to a SCOTUS decision by new laws enhancing and protecting property rights.

    Too often, the courts become the last protector of civil and property rights, when it’s a job for all branches and divisions of government. After this case, they actually took this job seriously.

    In that regard, I think you could defend that Kelo was such a disastrous case that the overall outcome was very good, thanks to the legislatures stepping up to the plate. In fact, the case could be made that a positive outcome in Kelo would not have been as protective of property rights as the negative outcome was…which lead to the flurry of legislative remedies to Kelo.

  4. While I do not disagree with you with respect to the awfulness of Souter and Kennedy, I think your assertion that McCain would nominate similar activist jurists is not supported by any evidence and is actually belied by who will be making the decisions on judicial picks in a McCain Administration. You also have to remember that at the time of the Reagan and HW Bush presidencies, there were very few conservative legal groups. The grassroots was nearly non-existant and there was not much of a bench in any case. One of the greatest accomplishments of the Reaganites was the creation of the infrastructure for promoting constructionalists. Roberts and Alito are the direct products of that effort. In a McCain Administration, Ted Olsen and some other brilliant conservative legal minds will be vetting the nominees. They will also have plenty of excellent and fully known quantities to pick from (avoidning the Souter fiasco) McCain’s disinterest in the subject is actually a good thing as he will likely rely on Olsen et al. which will lead to beneficial results.

  5. When SCOTUS actually judges against the letter of an amendment to the Constitution, then something important has happened.

    It’s impeachment worthy. It’s like Dred Scot.

Comments are closed.