Supreme in their own eyes

I have been patient in writing my response to the recent decisions handed down by the supreme court. I didn't want to simply write out of frustration but I cannot hold my pen (or keyboard) any longer.

For those who do not follow the court, In Kelo v. New London, they stated that property owners could be deprived of their property, and that that property could be handed over to private developers, as long as such a handover would create a "public benefit." It is hard to believe that the court could reach such an erroneous conclusion until you realize that the decision flows not out of some honest misreading of the law but out of a political philosophy that places government intentions ahead of individual freedom. No first year law student could read into the constitution that taking private property and giving it to other private developers is an appropriate use of the so called "taking clause". This clause is supposed to apply when the government needs the property for actual public use like building roads, bridges and other infrastructure. The only way to reach the court's recent conclusion is to work backwards by starting with idea that taking private property is a good thing and then using legal trickery to justify the decision.

By reaching their conclusions, the court has established a principle that nobody's private land is safe from the government. Politicians, never fail to utilize the fullest extent of the powers granted to them by the courts. I fully expect a flurry of projects designed to stimulate the economy will be approved by local city councils regardless of who already owns the land in question. Watch out if Walmart is coming to your town and you live near a busy intersection. Remember their catch phrase is "always low prices" so don't expect to get much for your house.

Perhaps the most shocking part of all is how silent most democrats have been. They are the ones who claim to care about the little people. But this law essentially yields great power not only to the government but also to wealthy developers who can politically influence city and local councils for their own schemes by offering new jobs and "economic development". Meanwhile the elderly and poor are at risk of losing their homes simply because someone else thinks they can make better "public use" of it.

The sad truth of this case is that it was hardly surprising. The court has been trekking towards reinterpreting the constitution for a long time. This is just one outpouring of that continuing ominous trend. The real problem is that the executive and legislative branches have yielded their powers to the court. The appointment and advise and constant process for judges is not used to determine their qualifications to be judges but rather a chance for both parties to make political points with the core supporters. Instead of fighting to protect the constitution, the fight is over secondary issues like abortion, gay rights and the like. These are important issues but the bigger issue is why we let an unelected body determine national policy on these issues in the first place.

I propose a bold answer to this growing problem. Instead of lifelong appointments, the voters should decide who sits on the supreme court. By voting on judges we could stop the charade that these positions are not political. It would also provide some accountability and reign in some of their power. This is not a new idea. In Michigan we already elect our supreme court and the system works well. Any change would be welcome compared to our current corrupt court.

In honor of the fourth of July, I want to close by quoting a paragraph from George Washington's farewell address that eloquently warns of the problems when one branch of government becomes to powerful.

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

Well said George. Well said.