From the Washington Times:If you thought Judge Sonia Sotomayor's controversial stances on racial issues were problematic, you should get a gander at the Supreme Court nominee's apparent hostility to property rights.
Judge Sotomayor served as the senior judge on one 2006 case, Didden v. Village of Port Chester, which respected University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein described as "about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined." Her judicial panel's ruling might be the worst violation of property rights ever approved by a federal appeals court. It is part of a pattern of Judge Sotomayor's pro-government rulings that run roughshod over the most basic of private property rights.
In the Didden ruling, as in the Supreme Court's infamous Kelo v. New London decision, the government used its constitutionally limited power of "eminent domain" to force one private owner to turn over land (for a fee) to give it to a private developer. Yet the Didden case was even worse than the Kelo one. When the town of New London, Conn., took Susette Kelo's home - a rank injustice - the town at least did so after public hearings. The Village of Port Chester, N.Y., took Bart Didden's land without a public hearing.
New London took the land around Ms. Kelo's house in order to change it from residential use to a commercial use that purportedly was for the public good. Port Chester, to the contrary, did not claim to change the land use for the public good. Instead, it merely gave the land to a private developer who wanted to use it for the same purpose, a pharmacy, as the original owners. Instead of a CVS, the new owner used it for a Walgreens.
In essence, wrote Mr. Epstein and George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, the taking of private property amounted to "out-and-out extortion" with government support. Yet Judge Sotomayor's panel not only ruled against Mr. Didden's property rights, but did so with a bare, six-paragraph order - as Mr. Somin described it, "without serious examination of the legal issues to any significant degree."
It's a mystery how the judge could square this case with the Constitution's requirement that private property can be taken only for "public use," or with its requirement that "no state" shall pass any "law impairing the obligation of contracts."
Is it any wonder that Bloomberg is desperately trying to get her on the country's highest court?
6 comments:
Seems that many of her decisions have been overturned after appeal.
A rule for determining if a quorum is present on the US Senate Judiciary Committee:
Six Members of the Committee, actually present, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of discussing business. Eight Members of the Committee, including at least two Members of the minority, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business. No bill, matter, or nomination shall be ordered reported from the Committee, however, unless a majority of the Committee is actually present at the time such action is taken and a majority of those present support the action taken.
If you want Sotomayor booted, write a letter to each of the 7 Republican members of that Committee: Tom Coburn, John Cornyn, Lindsay Graham, Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Jon Kyl, and Jeff Sessions.
Demand that they each boycott all committee hearings entirely. If they comply, there can be no confirmation hearing for this dismal moron.
So Schumer howls, along with the new committee member, the great Constitutional intellectual, Al Franken; so what? No one can demand a quorum! The boycott resembles a filibuster in that it can stop an action in its tracks. It differs in that it cannot be voted away.
If Sotomayor is the best that Obama can nominate, we might as well give up now.
Or, is it just possible, that regardless of her clear lack of qualifications, she was nominated because of race and gender?
It seems that others on the Obama team also are guilty of promoting emininent domain for other than public necessities. Vilsack encouraged the same thing in Iowa when he was Governor of Iowa. It is all very very worrisome.
Dixie Burkhart
Facts Don't Matter
www.eloquentbooks.com/FactsDontMatter.htm
eee.squidoo.com/Dixie-Burkhart
Anyone that is for Eminent Domain abuse is a criminal.
They do not serve justice. They serve billionaires.
Taxpayer:
If you want Sotomayor booted, write a letter to each of the 7 Republican members of that Committee: Tom Coburn, John Cornyn, Lindsay Graham, Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Jon Kyl, and Jeff Sessions.
___
What a great bunch of moralists you picked out. How about you consult with Mark Foley,Ted Haggard,Larry Craig, or Bob Allen.
You know Bob Allen the guy who Offered an undercover cop $20 to allow Allen to blow him in a men’s room in a public park. After being arrested, Allen tried to explain that he only offered to blow the cop because the cop was a “burly black man” and he “didn’t want to become a statistic.”
Allen was one of 21 Florida legislators to sign Gov. Jeb Bush’s friend-of-the-court brief supporting the state’s ban on gays adopting children, and he co-sponsored an unsuccessful bill that would have enhanced penalties for offenses involving unnatural and lascivious acts such as indecent exposure.
But we dont acknowledge that on the right?
But Im not a fan of Sotamayer either.
"You know Bob Allen the guy who Offered an undercover cop $20 to allow Allen to blow him in a men’s room in a public park"
Taxpayer wrote a thoughtful post about how to effectively protest this nominee, and your response was to attack a potential opposition leader. And your attack wasnt on ideological or even political grounds, you attack him on grounds that would shame the National Enquirer.
And then finish with... "But Im not a fan of Sotamayer either."
Lets call your post.. 'The Dumbing Down of Schizo Politics.'
You are creepy nuts.
Post a Comment