A note on the Amazon ads: I've chosen to display current events titles in the Amazon box. Unfortunately, Amazon appears to promote a disproportionate number of angry-left books. I have no power over it at this time. Rest assured, I'm still a conservative.
|
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
That'd be my list too: I'm still in wait-and-see mode on Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers -- though I'm skeptical/leaning against right now.
However, Dale Franks over at QandO has answered a series of questions from talk radio host Hugh Hewitt and one of Franks' answers is right on target with where the Supreme Court has gone wrong. Franks identifies the five Supreme Court decisions that need to be reversed.
Kelo v. New London (000 U.S. 04-108)
This decision simply guts property rights. If the city I live in decides they need a strip mall at my location, instead of my home, then Kelo essentially lets them get away with it, by sanctioning economic development as a valid public use. This is a radical departure from the constitutional history of the takings clause, because it amounts to nothing more than giving government the power to forcibly transfer property from one private owner to another.
Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479)
The father of Roe v.Wade, this was the case that created the right to "privacy" from the penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights. This "right" to privacy has been constantly expanded to the point where it now provides a foundation for the possibility of court-mandated gay marriage and polygamy just as certainly as it led directly to Roe. It is not the place of the courts to mandate these social constructs. This is the province of the people themselves, determining how best to govern themselves and regulate their polities through their elected representatives in the state legislatures.
McConnell v FEC (000 U.S. 02-1674)
The Court's decision in this case, upholding the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) is a travesty that guts free speech-and most importantly political speech, which was the primary concern of the Framers. It subjects participants in the political process to onerous penalties, merely for making their political views known.
Grutter v. Bollinger (000 U.S. 02-241)
The court upheld the use of racial preferences. I believe the government's use of racial and gender classifications of any type, for any purpose, are forbidden under the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
Roper v. Simmons (000 U.S. 03-633)
The Court, in what I can only describe as a sophistry of reason, outlawed the death penalty for juvenile offenders. Quite apart from the moral issue of whether juvenile murderers should be whacked, the court's decision, based on the "emerging consensus" of our society (if such a consensus is emerging, then does the Court need to act at all), and hinting at the use of foreign laws on the matter (foreign law is irrelevant to the Constitution) is illegitimate. In both cases, emerging consensus and foreign laws, such decisions are rightly legislative, not judicial ones.
Of course, once you get rid of Griswold v. Connecticut's emanations from penumbras, then Roe v. Wade falls too. I don't think anyone on the right can come up with a better list -- the question is: Is Harriet Miers someone who would move the court in this direction?
1:08 AM
|
|
