Supreme Court Madness

So far, no retirements. It will be interesting to see if that holds, particularly as the summer goes on and things fail to improve politically for this Administration.

Two comments on the recent flurry of activity by the Court these last two weeks. First, many conservatives who value private property over all else (yet don't seem to share the same view of personal liberty, go figure) are worked up by the Supreme Court's takings clause decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In Kelo, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Stevens, joined by Souter, Breyer and Ginsberg, with Kennedy concurring, endorsed the use of the eminent domain power by the City of New London, Connecticut to buy a home as part of an economic development project.

Well, now some very angry private property advocates have decided to try to see if they can take Justice Souter's New Hampshire home under the eminent domain power to teach him a lesson. I've got to give them credit for trying...

Also, Justice Scalia has been very open about his disdain for the citation of international law or authority in interpreting the U.S. Constitution, particularly in connection with the recent cases involving youth offenders and the death penalty. According to Scalia, such citations are just examples of activist judges who refuse to be limited by the restrictions of our written Constitution.

Well, then imagine my surprise when I read Justice Scalia's dissent in the Kentucky Ten Commandments case and saw that, right on the first page of his opinion, he discusses a conversation he had with a European politican on the eve of 9/11:

On September 11, 2001 I was attending in Rome, Italy an international conference
of judges and lawyers, principally from Europe and the United States. That night
and the next morning virtually all of the participants watched, in their hotel
rooms, the address to the Nation by the President of the United States
concerning the murderous attacks upon the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, in which thousands of Americans had been killed. The address ended, as Presidential
addresses often do, with the prayer "God bless America." The next afternoon I
was approached by one of the judges from a European country, who, after
extending his profound condolences for my country's loss, sadly observed "How I
wish that the Head of State of my country, at a similar time of national tragedy
and distress, could conclude his address 'God bless ______.' It is of course
absolutely forbidden."

Hmm, Antonin? I'm a little puzzled. I'm not really sure what significance a conversation you had on 9/11/01 with a European judge could possible have on the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution...
- posted by Joshua @ 3:47 PM