There’s a theory out there as to why the Supreme Court outlawed medically prescribed marijuana … so there would be more left for the them to smoke. This would at least explain how some justices are satisfying their “munchies” by snacking on the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has ruled that private-property rights are sacred, unless a city decides they could instead collect more taxes from a different source. The Court reached a 5-to-4 decision which cleared the way for the city of New London, Conn., to proceed with a plan to replace a residential neighborhood with office space, a conference hotel, a pedestrian riverwalk, and new residences – presumably where the old residents could buy back their land at several times what they paid for it years ago.
In this case, the city of New London, Conn., squared off against homeowners who were trying to keep the municipality from condemning their houses for use as part of a redevelopment project, including a $270 million facility to be built by Pfizer.
The Court’s decision was based simply on the fact that the economy of the area is depressed, and the project would bring in far more in tax revenue than the people who live there pay. The ruling also saves area government from having to get rid of people the old-fashioned and slower way: by raising their property taxes until they can’t afford to pay them. Eventually, there would have been plenty of room for Pfizer due to Pforeclosures.
One woman, who will now have to move, has lived in the same house for 87 years, ever since she was born. I’m sure the government will break the news to her in traditionally gentle fashion: “Unless you want your tombstone to be a Fuddruckers sign, beat it Grandma!”
The five justices who voted against private property were a group whose next colonoscopy will find an anomaly, and the large polyps will turn out to be their own heads – benign to them, malignant to the rest of us.
Those judges were: “Librarian from Hades,” Ruth Bader Ginsburg; John Paul Stevens, who was nominated to the Court by Gerald Ford, perhaps after falling down the steps of Air Force One and suffering a closed-head injury; mamma’s boy and Stan Laurel ringer, David Souter; another stain left on the black robe of the Court by Bill Clinton alongside the Bader Ginsburg discharge – Stephen Breyer; and Anthony Kennedy, who proves that even Reagan made mistakes.
While many issues decided by the Court can and should be debated, often it’s their reasoning, or lack thereof, that we should find most troubling. For example, when the Supreme Court decided that juveniles cannot be executed, Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion in that case:
The stark reality is that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty. It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty. While not controlling our outcome, [it] does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions.
Who loosened the wheels on the intellectual Hoverounds of these coots? “International opinion”? “The United States is the only country in the world that gives sanction to …”? What does the U.S. Constitution say? Who cares? As long as nobody in the world cries “sacre bleu,” they figure they’ve done their jobs.
Where is the anger from the left concerning the New London ruling? Where are the self-proclaimed champions of the working class and downtrodden? Where is the outrage from Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, home-stater John Kerry, et al? Simple – their furor is cooled by an understanding that they’d be admitting agreement with Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and the rest of the dissenters. With judicial nominations sure to be on the horizon, the last thing Democrats need is to be seen on the side of the same legal philosophy they’re preparing to “Bork.”
John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion that New London’s plan “unquestionably serves a public purpose.” Well, so does plowing under the Supreme Court building, but we don’t have the right to do that, do we? Not unless a developer wants the space. After all, Justice Stevens, a shopping mall will supply more tax revenue than the Court, right? Government buildings, not to mention their contents, only consume tax money.
Watching the Court fall victim to its own “reasoning” could never repair the damage done by the ruling, but it would provide some small but pleasurable measure of justice, if only briefly, to those who could otherwise find none.