SUPREME COURT (IN)JUSTICE
With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the battle over the bench enters a new level
First, a word of caution: This message is going to be pretty heated. I generally try to maintain a civil tone and comment on the issues without getting "worked up", but there are certain times when I feel the need to vent and this is one of them. If you're a die-hard liberal or faint of heart, then you may not wish to read this post. If, on the other hand, you are a freedom-fighting, life-loving, warm-blooded American Patriot, then read on.
Picture this: A family walks into a home announcing to the homeowner that they've finally found the house they want to buy, and this is it. The homeowner, shocked to find this family standing in his hallway, announces, "It's not for sale." Completely ignoring him, the trespassing father sends his two children upstairs to pick out their new bedrooms. He asks the homeowner his price, to which the homeowner responds, "There is no price." The intruding couple announces "Sold! We'll take it!"[1]
The first time I saw Century 21's "Not For Sale" commercial[1], I laughed at its jest on a ludicrous situation. When I watch it now, I shudder that the Supreme Court has made it a reality.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Kelo vs. City of New London (04-0108) that the city of New London, CT could use the right of "eminent domain" to seize private property for commercial development by private developers. City officials had thus far bullied 80 homeowners into selling their property while seven homeowners remained to fight for their rights; but the New London Development Corporation, led by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, has usurped the Constitution in this tragic case.[2]
This has got to be one of the most Communistic rulings to ever come from the so-called high court. But there is hope for common sense to return as the tables are being turned on the elite who have been, until now, above the law. But now, their own ruling may be their worst nightmare.
As reported Wednesday night (June 29) on Hannity & Colmes, "a Los Angeles-based activist faxed a letter to the town of Wier, NH, urging local officials to sieze the home of Justice David Souter and turn it into a hotel."[3] According to Logan Darrow Clements of Freestar Media, this is not a stunt and that they "will proceed with [the initiative] if money comes forward."[3] When asked by guest-host Rich Lowry if the ousting would extend to the other Supreme Court Justices (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Stevens) who had voted in support of the New Hampshire land-grab, he responded, "There are such things as hotel chains, so we can certainly have other locations."[3] Maybe there is justice in this world after all. These Justices (and I use that term loosely) may have life tenure and cannot be held accountable for their decisions, but they can be held to them. Now we need to boycott Pfizer and the other property thieves disguised as businessmen. Let them know that Communism is not welcome in the United States of America.
On June 27, the Supreme Court delivered two more conflicting verdicts, allowing a Ten Commandments display outside the Texas state Capitol[4][5][6][7], while Justices Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, O'Connor, and Stevens banned two others in Kentucky, citing some idiocy about the intent of those who set up the displays.[5][6][7][8] As if they understood anything about intent! The liberal majority once again ignored the rule of law and the original intent of the Founders of the Constitution, and created their own precedent on a whim. God help us.
According to the Declaration of Independence, the basis of the American dream is built upon our God-given rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."[9] The eminent domain debacle and the latest attacks upon the Ten Commandments are just some new examples of the liberals on the Supreme Court and the Federal Judiciary abusing their power and attacking the foundation upon which this country was founded. And this is just the latest testament to the vital importance of the right nominee being placed as the next Supreme Court Justice.
As Sandra Day O'Connor announced today that she was retiring upon the confirmation of her successor[5], the next phase in the battle over the Supreme Court has begun. O'Connor was among the dissenters on the aforementioned eminent domain ruling, but she voted with the majority on the banning of the Kentucky Ten Commandments display. Historically, it's been difficult to predict where she might rule on any given subject; which is illogical, since the Constitution is a solid document which does not change from case to case. Whoever replaces her on the bench must have a working understanding of the Constitution and rule consistently according to its original intent. Unfortunately, the liberals in the Senate won't have any of it.
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said today, "If the President abuses his power and nominates someone who threatens to roll back the rights and freedoms of the American people, then the American people will insist that we oppose that nominee, and we intend to do so."[10] What a joke! The liberal B.S. is starting to flow, right on schedule.
What the American people need to realize is that it is the liberals who are "roll[ing] back the rights and freedoms of the American people." It's not the Conservatives who voted to steal the homes of tax-paying American citizens; it's the liberals.[2] Kennedy's buddies are the ones who are stealing peoples' homes. It's not the Conservatives who want to ban the Bible from American school-children, but insist that we provide Korans for our terrorist prisoners; it's the liberals. It's not the Conservatives who defend pornography as "free speech" while insisting that evangelical Christians shut up; it's the liberals. It's not the Conservatives who insist on keeping legal the murder of innocent children; it's the liberals. Kennedy and his country club Communists are the ones who support abortion (translate: murder) on demand, including the barbaric partial-birth abortion. It wasn't the Conservatives who allowed Michael Schiavo to murder his wife in the name of "quality of life"; it was the liberals. It's always the liberals.
Listen, fellow Americans. There's a place in America for liberalism, but it cannot be allowed to perpetrate these atrocities. There's a time for leniency and compromise, but we can't compromise on the principles upon which America was built. If you want to preserve the life, liberty, and the American Way of life for this, and the next, generation; then support President Bush as he nominates a Conservative Justice who interprets the Constitution as it was originally intended. Let Ted Kennedy, David Souter, and their fellow Communists know that we're not falling for their lies and propaganda. We believe in truth, justice, and the American Way. We believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We're not ashamed to be called Americans and we're not ashamed of the name of Jesus Christ. From the Minutemen of the 1700's to the Minutemen watching our borders today, we are what America is really about, and we're not going to sit idly by while our country is hijacked by Communist baby-killers. America was built upon God, freedom, and Capitalism; and if the Commies don't like it, they can go live with the Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan. See how they like that culture. God bless America, and God save our land. Amen.
<><}}}0>
SOURCES:
[1] TV Commercial: Century 21: "Not For Sale"
[2] "Supreme Court Backs Municipal Land Grabs: Justices affirm property seizures for private development" by Bill Mears, CNN News, 06/24/05, http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/index.html
[3] "Hannity and Colmes", 06/29/05, 9:00 pm ET, FOX News Channel
[4] Justice Rehnquist, majority opinion, U.S. Supreme Court decision,
[5] "FOX News LIVE", 06/27/05, 12:00 pm ET, FOX News Channel
[6] "Dayside" w/ Linda Vester, 06/27/05, 1;00 pm ET, FOX News Channel
[7] "Studio B" w/ Shepard Smith, 06/27/05, 3:00 pm ET, FOX News Channel
[8] Justice David Souter, majority opinion, U.S. Supreme Court decision, McCreary vs. ACLU
[9] Declaration of Independence of the United States of America
[10] "Your World" w/ Neil Cavuto, 07/01/05, 4:00 pm ET, FOX News Channel
posted by Kevin Lauer at 11:53 PM
3 Comments:
Is Your Home or Church At Risk?
August 24, 2005
I want you to know about a recent, devastating ruling issued by the U.S. Supreme Court--because we now have a chance to do something about it. The Court's decision said that local governments now have the power to seize your home or property and transfer it to a private developer if the developer would generate more tax revenue. Think of what that power might mean: your home can be taken from you if a developer can persuade local officials that he will build a larger, more expensive project on your property that will generate more tax dollars. Your church, which pays no taxes, faces new risks, too. Churches occupy prime city properties all across America, but what will happen if local governments seeking more revenue set their sights on them? Also, are conservative Christian churches more vulnerable than others, when city officials who are in many cases hostile to religion are the ones making the decision?
The case I am referring to is Kelo v. City of New London, in which officials in this Connecticut town wanted to seize and demolish the homes of several citizens to facilitate the building of a private office complex. The area was not blighted and the homes had been owned by the families for many years; one had even been in the owner's family for 100 years. The homeowners sued the city, claiming that the U.S. Constitution only allows the taking of private property (under the 5th Amendment power of "eminent domain") when it is needed for "public use," such as for widening a road to accommodate increased traffic. But, in another case of expansive reading of the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled against the homeowners.
If you are upset about the fact that private property is at risk, you are not alone! Private property rights are foundational to a free and prosperous society. Many in Congress agree and are outraged. The threat to freedom from the Kelo decision is very real for families, so I have put FRC on record supporting U.S. Sen. John Cornyn's bill (S. 1313) to blunt the impact of the Kelo decision and protect private property rights in line with the traditional meaning of eminent domain. The bill has a real chance of passing, if we can generate strong public support.
Let your U.S. senators know that private homes and property must be protected, as they have been since the founding of America. And, PLEASE, forward this to many friends and family so they can make their opinion known as well.
Click here to tell your Senators to support S. 1313.
Sincerely,
Tony Perkins
President,
Family Research Council
P.S. Don't forget to let your family and friends know about this bill by forwarding this message.
Hey guy, just thought I'd drop this by you, since you seem to be a bit unclear on the definition of communism. Check it out, yeah?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Hi, Synystrad. The article you referred says, in part, "Communism refers to a conjectured future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production, and to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal."
According to your own article, the main goal of Communism is to establish a social culture based on common ownership. It's a utopiistic thought and seems positive on the surface, but when forced onto a community, it becomes patently evil.
Communism is forced socialism, which means stealing from one class of people to give to another. Despite the romanticizing of Robin Hood, stealing from the rich (or anybody else) doesn't make you a hero; it makes you a thief. In the Kelo case (and the other Eminent Domain abuses), it's not even taking from the wealthy to give to the poor; it's stealing from the poor to give to the rich developers. It is truly an evil ruling.
I believe in what has recently been dubbed "Compassionate Conservatism." I believe in being liberal with charity out of my own pocket while being conservative with the money of others. I will gladly pay to support charities through my local church or by my own volition, but I resent when the government forces me (and you) to do so.
In the Kelo case, and the others that have arisen since then, the local governments have abused a part of the Constitution that was established for an entirely different purpose and intended to be used under completely different circumstances. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has blindly endorsed these abuses. As a result, the private homes of law-abiding, tax-paying, American citizens are being seized and given to another private citizen for private development. In my book, that's grand theft.
Redistribution of wealth; that's one of the basic tenants of Socialism and Communism. And that's the basis for my use of the term in the "Supreme Court (In)Justice" article.
Post a Comment
<< Home