[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani

Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!

Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates

Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!]

1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires.

Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed

Local Governments Can Be Ignorant Pissers!!

Cash Jordan: Gangs PLUNDER LA Mall... as California’s “NO JAILS” Strategy IMPLODES

Margin Debt Tops Historic $1 Trillion, Your House Will Be Taken Blindly Warns Dohmen

Tucker Carlson LIVE: America After Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk allegedly recently refused $150 million from Israel to take more pro Israel stances

"NATO just declared War on Russia!"Co; Douglas Macgregor

If You're Trying To Lose Weight But Gaining Belly Fat, Watch Insulin

Arabica Coffee Prices Soar As Analyst Warns of "Weather Disasters" Risk Denting Global Production

Candace Owens: : I Know What Happened at the Hamptons (Ackman confronted Charlie Kirk)

Illegal Alien Drunk Driver Mows Down, Kills 16-Year-Old Girl Who Rejected His Lewd Advances

STOP Drinking These 5 Coffees – They’re Quietly DESTROYING Your Gut & Hormones

This Works Better Than Ozempic for Belly Fat

Cinnamon reduces fat

How long do health influencers live? Episode 1 of 3.

'Armed Queers' Marxist Revolutionaries Under Investigation For Possible Foreknowledge Of Kirk's Assassination Plot


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Good Riddance! [Justice John Paul Stevens]
Source: NRO
URL Source: http://article.nationalreview.com/431149/good-riddance/thomas-sowell
Published: Apr 13, 2010
Author: Dr. Thomas Sowell
Post Date: 2010-04-13 13:38:49 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 242
Comments: 19

When Republicans appoint justices like John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court, it does lasting damage to the country.

When Supreme Court Justices retire, there is usually some pious talk about their “service,” especially when it has been a long “service.” But the careers of all too many of these retiring jurists, including currently retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, have been an enormous disservice to this country.

Justice Stevens was on the high court for 35 years — more’s the pity, or the disgrace. Justice Stevens voted to sustain racial quotas, created “rights” out of thin air for terrorists, and took away American citizens’ rights to their own homes in the infamous Kelo decision of 2005.

The Constitution of the United States says that the government must pay “just compensation” for seizing a citizen’s private property for “public use.” In other words, if the government has to build a reservoir or bridge, and your property is in the way, they can take that property, provided that they pay you its value.

What has happened over the years, however, is that judges have eroded this protection and expanded the government’s power — as they have in other issues. This trend reached its logical extreme in the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London. This case involved local government officials’ seizing homes and businesses — not for “public use” as the Constitution specifies, but to turn this private property over to other private parties who would build more upscale facilities that would bring in more tax revenues.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the Supreme Court opinion that expanded the Constitution’s authorization of seizing private property for “public use” to seizing private property for a “public purpose.” And who would define what a “public purpose” is? Basically, those who were doing the seizing. As Justice Stevens put it, the government authorities’ assessment of a proper “public purpose” was entitled to “great respect” by the courts.

Let’s go back to square one. Just who was this provision of the Constitution supposed to restrict? Answer: government officials. And to whom would Justice Stevens defer? Answer: government officials. Why would those who wrote the Constitution waste good ink putting that protection in there, if not to protect citizens from the very government officials to whom Justice Stevens deferred?

John Paul Stevens is a classic example of what has been wrong with too many Republicans’ appointments to the Supreme Court. The biggest argument in favor of nominating him was that he could be confirmed by the Senate without a fight.

Democratic presidents appoint judges who will push their political agenda from the federal bench, even if that requires stretching and twisting the Constitution to reach their goals.

Republicans too often appoint judges whose confirmation will not require a big fight with the Democrats. You can always avoid a fight by surrendering, and a whole wing of the Republican party long ago mastered the art of preemptive surrender.

The net result has been a whole string of Republican justices of the Supreme Court carrying out the Democrats’ agenda, in disregard of the Constitution. John Paul Stevens has been just one.

There may have been some excuse for President Ford’s picking such a man in order to avoid a fight, at a time when he was an unelected president who came into office in the wake of Richard Nixon’s resignation in disgrace after Watergate, which created lasting damage to the public’s support of the Republican party.

But there was no such excuse for the elder President Bush’s appointing David Souter, much less for President Eisenhower, with back-to-back landslide victories at the polls, to inflict William J. Brennan on the country.

In light of these justices’ records, and in view of how long justices remain on the court, nominating such people was close to criminal negligence.

If and when the Republicans return to power in Washington, we can only hope that they remember what got them suddenly and unceremoniously dumped out of power the last time. Basically, it was running as Republicans and then governing as if they were Democrats, running up big deficits, with lots of earmarks and interfering with the market.

But their most lasting damage to the country has been putting people like John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 13.

#13. To: James Deffenbach (#0)

Stevens Legacy Includes Key Role in Terrorism Cases

Indeed, in Rumsfeld v. Padilla, the 2004 case involving the American "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla, being detained by U.S. officials, Stevens set out the foundation for his later opinions in a Rutledge-like dissent chastising his colleagues for dismissing Padilla's case on jurisdictional grounds.

"At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society," he wrote. "Even more important than the method of selecting the people's rulers and their successors is the character of the constraints imposed on the Executive by the rule of law. Unconstrained Executive detention for the purpose of investigating and preventing subversive activity is the hallmark of the Star Chamber.

"For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny."

... In Rasul v. Bush in 2004, he wrote the majority opinion holding that federal courts have habeas corpus jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals held by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. The crucial fifth vote was cast by Justice Anthony Kennedy who, in a concurrence, reached the same conclusion via a different route.

... Stevens also wrote the majority opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), holding that military commissions set up by the Bush administration exceeded the president's authority and their structure and procedures violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.

Here again, the Rutledge experience played out in a terrorism ruling. In Hamdan, Stevens had to confront the high court's closest precedent on military commissions: In re Yamashita (1946), where the justices denied a petition for habeas corpus by Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita, who was sentenced to death by a U.S. military commission in the Philippines for atrocities by his troops.

Rutledge dissented in an "unusually long and vociferous" opinion, wrote Stevens in Hamdan. Rutledge wrote: "In this stage of war's aftermath ... [i]t is not too early, it is never too early ... for the nation steadfastly to follow its great constitutional traditions, none older or more universally protective than due process of law in the trial and punishment of men, that is, of all men, whether citizens, aliens, alien enemies or belligerents. It can become too late."

In Hamdan, Stevens vindicated his former boss in holding that Yamashita was stripped of its precedential value.

Follow the link provided above to read the complete article

strepsiptera  posted on  2010-04-14   17:02:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 13.

#14. To: All (#13)

Whether respondent is entitled to immediate release is a question that reasonable jurists may answer in different ways. There is, however, only one possible answer to the question whether he is entitled to a hearing on the justification for his detention.

At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society. Even more important than the method of selecting the people’s rulers and their successors is the character of the constraints imposed on the Executive by the rule of law. Unconstrained Executive detention for the purpose of investigating and preventing subversive activity is the hallmark of the Star Chamber. Access to counsel for the purpose of protecting the citizen from official mistakes and mistreatment is the hallmark of due process.

Executive detention of subversive citizens, like detention of enemy soldiers to keep them off the battlefield, may sometimes be justified to prevent persons from launching or becoming missiles of destruction. It may not, however, be justified by the naked interest in using unlawful procedures to extract information. Incommunicado detention for months on end is such a procedure. Whether the information so procured is more or less reliable than that acquired by more extreme forms of torture is of no consequence. For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny.

I respectfully dissent.

This is why the neocons are happy to see Stevens go.

Rumsfeld v Padilla full text of Stevens dissent

strepsiptera  posted on  2010-04-14 18:26:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 13.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]