Call it 'the Mugabe court'

It was fitting that the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to permit government to bulldoze private homes and businesses arbitrarily and capriciously the same week Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe was bulldozing hundreds of thousands of homes in what he called "an urban renewal program."

What's the difference?

TRENDING: Is America having a near-death experience, or is this the end?

It can only be a matter of degree.

One can scarcely argue that it is OK for government to force a few private homeowners to abandon their property, but not many.

Isn't there a principle at stake? A principle called "private property"?

The rage sweeping across this country at what I am calling "the Mugabe court" is encouraging. However, conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans have few champions in this fight against this anti-Constitution court.

Some might have expected President Bush to at least sound off against this travesty. He did not. He could not, as he is compromised as noted yesterday in this space. Had Bush dared to speak out against the capricious use of eminent domain, some smarty-pants reporter might have pointed out he used it to build his own fortune. That's why I took the liberty of pointing it out since his spokesman tells us we "must respect the Supreme Court's decision."

Show me where in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence it suggests we should respect a court that flagrantly rewrites the Constitution?

So, Bush is out. It is clear his support for property rights is about as deep as his commitment to enforce immigration laws in this country. And this president will soon be naming Supreme Court nominees. Aren't you glad you didn't vote for that flip-flopping John Kerry?

Some might expect Congress to intervene, since Congress has a constitutional oversight role and the power to overturn bad Supreme Court decisions through new laws. Congress even has the power to limit the scope of future rulings by the court on an issue like this.

Nevertheless, the Congress is as gutless as Bush.

I am receiving hundreds of e-mails from readers who are writing and calling their members of Congress demanding action. They are being told by members of both the House and Senate – including some ranking members of the judiciary committees – that Congress is powerless to do anything about a decision by the Mugabe court.

How ludicrous is this?

Just a week ago, with much fanfare, the House of Representatives voted to approve a constitutional amendment to ban the desecration of the American flag. Yet the Supreme Court has ruled unequivocally that flag-burning is a First Amendment right. That decision came in 1989.

If Congress is powerless to act in contradiction to the Mugabe court, how do those geniuses over there justify the flag-burning bill?

And I've got to tell you, I am far more concerned about the desecration of the Constitution I witnessed last week than I am about the desecration of the flag.

For one reason, no one is burning the flag in this country. So why is Congress in a lather about that? Meanwhile, our Constitution is being shredded on a daily basis in Washington – the Kelo case is a perfect illustration – and Congress sits on its hands. Are members really this stupid? Or corrupt? Or compromised? Or both?

OK, so the president is not going to take on the Mugabe court. Congress is not going to take on the Mugabe court. So it is up to us – we the people.

Is it possible some enterprising activist organization could assemble the legal talent and a few investors to squeeze Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stephens and Stephen G. Breyer out of their homes? Why not find out where they live and get to work on local officials in their towns and counties? There must be a few developers left who still believe in property rights? Let's make those city and county officials an offer they can't refuse. Let's give these black-robed fascists a taste of their own medicine.

Would I love to see them squirm. What could they say? They've told us local officials know best what's in the best interests of their communities.

These legal terrorists need to be exposed. They need to be punished for their betrayal of the Constitution and their oaths of office. They need to stopped.