The Supreme Court--A Series (Part One)

With the Kelo vs The City of New London, Ct. decision, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS hereafter) declared war on Americans by striking what could be a fatal blow to a free America. Specifically, the Kelo decision abrogated the right to property, one of the four cardinal Rights of Man (along with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

Because of how the right to property literally makes possible the other cardinal rights, the Kelo decision may well be among the WORST two or three decisions of SCOTUS in its history, along with sustaining slavery.

Since SCOTUS declared war on us, we hereby declare war on SCOTUS--until it reverses Kelo and returns to preserving and protecting the Rights of Man through rational interpretation of the Constitution. We have fired some shots already here on Sixth Column and our sister website, 6th Column Against Jihad. These were warmups.

We must do all we can to help provide the correct focus: on the principles involved. Without these principoles, we cannot hope to win. Without the relevant principles, we will argue details, "down in the grass," thereby missing the forest, while SCOTUS continues to slice Constitutional principles away from the Constitution, like slicing up a roast of beef.

To do our part, we are beginning this series. It will be open-ended but not a daily occurrence.

Since there may not be a contextually relevant opportunity in this series to present an interesting observation, we will address it here and now.

While gathering background materials for this series of articles to come, we were able to compare two important SCOTUS decision. One was the 1965 Griswold versus Connecticut, the one that established the "right to privacy." The other is the 2005 Kelo versus The City of New London, Ct., which abrogated the right to property (and much more). 40 years separated these decisions, and the quality differences are more than "night and day."

The Griswold decision along with its concurrences and dissents presents good Constitutional history, law, and principles. The Kelo decision, except for its dissents, reads like a term paper from a mediocre first year law student. While Griswold is lofty and principled, Kelo is expedient and pedestrian. Griswold highlights judicial thinkers and Constitutional scholars. Kelo, in Justice Stevens' decision, reads like the back of a cereal box and want-ads and raises the huge question of how and why this man sits on SCOTUS.

Later in this series, we will get into some of the details of these decisions, but not now. For now, we want to present some impressions and right a grievous wrong previously not mentioned.

In the Kelo decision, most of the concurring justices wrote nothing. They rubber-stamped what Justice Stevens wrote. The only good part of the decision comes from the dissenting justices. Justice O'Connor wrote one, and Justice Thomas wrote the other.

Justice O'Connor's dissent has been widely publicized compared to that written by Justice Thomas. Her dissent is good, but his is much better.

Justice Thomas' decision was in the spirit and tenor of those who wrote for and against the Griswold decision. It drew on Constitutional scholarship, including historical origins and the string of bad SCOTUS decisions against property over the years. It was eloquent, and we look forward to quoting from Justice Thomas on Kelo later on.

Now to righting a wrong, and it involves Justice Thomas. The Left have done everything they can to vilify that man since his confirmation hearings. Even yesterday, Rush Limbaugh read from a newspaper that tried to assert that Justice Thomas must not be considered in any consideration of any aspect of SCOTUS because he is "not black," and he does not represent the views of his race. Pause on that bit of tribalistic thinking.

Senator Harry Reid, who took over for Senator Daschle who got fired by his constituency, early in his new tenure launched an attack on Justice Thomas. You may remember how Reid indicated that Thomas could not think or write at the SCOTUS level. He left the distinct impression that he considered Justice Thomas to be some poor sharecropping Negro, existing on some sort of super-welfare.

Many people at the time pulled Justice Thomas' decisions to see for themselves, including "Best of the Web" from the Wall Street Journal. Others commented on television. No one could back up Senator Reid's comments--for lack of evidence.

After reading Justice Thomas' dissent on Kelo, I bow to his intellect and writing as excellent. Senator Reid showed himself when he made his first comments about Justice Thomas to be a bigoted fool at best, and he has done nothing but go downhill in perfidy as a rotten human being and lousy senator since. Thus, Senator Reid's hatred of Judge Alito is a huge backhanded complement to Judge Alito.

The other important point about the comparison between the Griswold and Kelo decisions comes from wondering about that 40 year gap. Has SCOTUS deteriorated intellectually that severely in 40 years?