Libercontrarian

Crushed between the wheels of capitalism and big government.

About me

User: underwhelmed

This is The Libercontrarian:

Gun owner. Married. Ex-Navy.

A Christian, but not too sinless. Foul-mouthed, sarcastic, a little self-righteous. Sometimes angry. Jocluar. A bit of a crusader. A great friend. A pretty decent American.


  • Contact me
  • My profile
  • Linkme

Counter

visited *loading* times

Saturday, 25 June 2005
Further Thoughts On The Kelo Ruling

In reading around the internet about the furor over the SCOTUS decision on Kelo v. New London Township, I decided that I'd pursue this grand malfeasance further. It's not every day when a Constitutional Right, one of the Bill Of Rights, those that Madison claimed were inalienable, gets trampled into pieces right in front of your eyes. In writing to my friend Eric Cowperthwaite, from Eric's Grumbles Before The Grave, I expounded thusly:

"I've gotta tell you, the more I think about what happened, and how it was explained, the more shocked and bewildered I am. This has really woken up some folks who thought that there was a "difference" between the Republican Party and the Democrats. What's more shocking is how this decision has managed to offend and surprise everyone - liberals and conservatives alike, although the Big Gummint Lefties and the rocket-scientists who create our "Newstertainment" are strangely quiet about the topic.

"...Meanwhile, back to Aruba... Greta Van Susteren will be crawling into the Aruban Governor's mower shack to see if she can uncover any breaking news about the Trusting Pretty White Girl Who Went Strangely Missing."

Nothing to see here, move along. Move along.

I feel that this is one of the most momentous (momentously BAD) decisions the court has ever made - this is as stupid and judicially weak as Roe v. Wade, as crummy as Plessey v. Ferguson, and as morally reprehensible as the Dred Scot decision.

In retail, you can complain loud enough and long enough to get your money back on just about anything, even if it is half-used-up. Can we get our votes back on the Republican Senators who allowed, or in some cases, supported the appointments of Ginsberg, Kennedy or Stevens? How about Souter and Breyer?

The Republican Party nominated the majority of justices to the court, yet it consistently leans towards increasing governmental powers against the weakest members of our society - private citizens, who don't have access to unlimited taxpayer or corporate-funded attorneys. This doesn't jibe with the Republican Party's stand on individual rights or small government (only when the Democrats have Congress for 50 years are they for "small government"), but does jibe with the often-made accusation that Republicans wish to protect business interests above all else. This decision, which empowers collusion between local government and business interests, does precisely that. It is the worst example of "legislation from the bench" I have seen in my adult life."

Eric has created a far more intelligent post than I have (as is the usual case), and has also created a kind of a "round up," a first in a series of Carnivals (like the Carnival of Cordite, only a carnival of libertarianism instead called Life, Liberty, Property). It will likely be making rounds, hosted by each of it's members, and probably feared by leftists (and possibly by Bush supporters, who have an agenda that hardly anyone can understand) all around.

I will post further on this topic as I attempt to get my tiny intellect to wrap around this huge issue.

posted by: underwhelmed at June 25, 2005 15:12 | link | comments (3) |


Comments:
#1  25 June 2005 - 19:41
 
This whole thing has a stink about it...that isn't going to be able to be *spun*. I never thought in my lifetime I would see one of the ten Bill of Rights killed. As sad as that is...god help us if we have a serial killer on the loose.
Anonymous
#2  25 June 2005 - 20:23
 
Yep. You gotta look out for those tiny, appealing salacious human interest stories in between the GIANT IMPENDING TRAGEDIES that bore the average Murkin's mind. :-(
User: underwhelmed Contact me View user's mediablog underwhelmed
#3  02 July 2005 - 10:07
 
"What's more shocking is how this decision has managed to offend and surprise everyone - liberals and conservatives alike"

To me, that's the big story and a ray of hope. It could mean that deep down, a lot of politicians -- even those acting like socialists -- care about individual rights. Maybe we can use this shock that the Supremes have given us to start working back toward a federal government that jealously guards individual rights instead of trying to figure out ways around said rights.

I also agree with that little bit about the MSM. I don't even watch Greta's show on Fox -- nothing she covers is in any way relevant to me or my life. If a murder/kidnapping happened in my community, maybe -- but most of the time, no.

* * *

"I never thought in my lifetime I would see one of the ten Bill of Rights killed"

It's already happened, friend. Roper (the juvenile death-penalty case) earlier this year demonstrated that the 10th Amendment no longer exists. When the Supremes (Law Lords?) upheld the McCain-Feingold law, they excised an important protection formerly offered by the first amendment.

The second amendment might as well not exist at all. Need I continue?
Anonymous
Comments:


 

 My profile Contact menub