I'm Just Sayin'

We have a procedure by which differences of opinions concerning our laws and court cases can be settled. The Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of the United States...SCOTUS..is the ultimate dispute settler...the final word. Well, almost...an act of Congress can supersede a SCOTUS decision.   This top of the pile authority is supposed to operate free from bias and personal or religious influence. This isn't the case, however. No person can completely rid themselves of personal beliefs as they wear the blindfold while holding the balance scales  of justice. The nine supreme court justices who decide our most important issues are appointed to that position. The president nominates his choice and the Senate must then confirm, or not confirm, that appointment and that appointment is for a lifetime. And so, one of the most effective ways by which a president can insure his personal tenet is to nominate for SCOTUS justice,  a person who shares his personal views.    A conservative president will nominate another conservative for example. The trick here is to choose a nominee who will be able to further the conservative agenda and still be able to get a Senate confirmation.  This is largely dependant upon the mood...conservative or liberal..of the Senate at the time of nomination.

Due to this "justice tampering" the Supreme Court will sometimes make unjust decisions or biased decisions or decisions that are in conflict with our constitution. The example of blatant conflict I want to talk about is the procedure of eminent domain. Our founding fathers had seen private land taken from it's rightful owners by governments and wanted to protect land  and property owners in their new country from becoming victims of property theft by the government. The founders also knew that a guarantee would be needed so that private land could be taken as a way to insure right of ways for transportation and room for government facilities. So in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, they provided "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."  In 1954, in the case of Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S.26 , SCOTUS handed down a landmark decision. The court ruled that private property could be taken for a public purpose with just compensation. The difference here is small in wording...huge in meaning. Public use versus public purpose meant that a government could take land that it decided could best be used in a different manor if they deemed the new use or overall improvement of the land use benefited a greater number of people. So even if the condemnation of a piece of land was not for use as a railroad right of way or a new courthouse, for example, the government could still take the property. The Berman v. Parker decision was a continuance of a procedure enacted in 1945 when Congress passed the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 which gave the DC Redevelopment Land Agency the power to redevelop blighted  areas. The owners of the "blighted' areas could be forced to relinquish ownership of their property so that the government agency could improve the land for the good of the greater amount of people.

In June of 2005, the Supreme Court, in a case involving New London, Conn, (Kelo v. New London, Conn) ruled that private land could be taken from it's owners and sold to private developers if the private developers were going to improve the use of the property in favor of a majority of people. Let's say that you own a little dry cleaning company that you inherited from your parents. Now let's suppose a large developer wants to build a large shopping center and your business or home is in their way and you don't want to sell. By using the "right" of eminent domain, the local government could force you to sell or they could evict you because the new development...the big shopping center will employ more people and help revitalize the area in which you operate your small business. Basically, the government sees an opportunity to increase tax revenues which they also argue is for the betterment of your (former) community.

I'm finally getting to the point of this posting. The backlash to this SCOTUS decision has been enormous.  Eminent domain abuse ran wild. The city councils and planning commissions of almost all cities are full of those with vested interests, or they are easily influenced by those with interests in real estate development companies...or they can be easily bribed. Eminent domain proceedings tripled nationwide. Law suits were filed by oppressed property owners and cases were argued before district courts, then state courts. The overwhelming result of these court cases has been in favour of the original property owners. The Supreme Court made a bad, unfair, unjust  decision. Since that decision, 31 states have passed laws restricting the use of eminent domain for economic development. Governors in three of those states have vetoed such legislation, 21 states have passed measures that have been signed by their governors...more states have bills on the desks of its' governors waiting to be signed and other states are going to allow the voters to decide.

The Supreme Court does not always protect our constitution. We must protect it ourselves....we must protect our constitution. The circular authority structure of this country makes that possible. There is no final authority...no ultimate decision maker. That is the design and purpose of our founders. That is why we were given our most important document and why we must protect our Constitution.