[GCFL-discuss] Unwise court decisions

[Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List]

This is a direct example though of what we want our Supreme Court doing.
Ruling based off our Constitution and laws. Not ruling based off of their
opinions. We shouldn't be hanging our Supreme Court Justices for ruling
based off the Constitution. My Poli Sci prof was quite excited to talk
about this fact.

LAnce

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:05:39 -0500 "Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies
List" <gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> writes:
Was anyone here disappointed by the Supreme Court decision about eminent
domain -- the one where they took three private homes to make way for a
commercial development, that happened to be a package put together by the
city for "redevelopment"? I just noticed a NY Times article about a
speech by Justice Stevens saying the decision was "unwise." Here is a
short excerpt, and a link to the full article.

Siarlys


In one, the eminent domain case that became the term's most controversial
decision, he said that his majority opinion that upheld the government's
"taking" of private homes for a commercial development in New London,
Conn., brought about a result "entirely divorced from my judgment
concerning the wisdom of the program" that was under constitutional
attack.

His own view, Justice Stevens told the Clark County Bar Association, was
that "the free play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable
results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public
officials." But he said that the planned development fit the definition
of "public use" that, in his view, the Constitution permitted for the
exercise of eminent domain.

Justice Stevens said he also regretted having to rule in favor of the
federal government's ability to enforce its narcotics laws and thus trump
California's medical marijuana initiative. "I have no hesitation in
telling you that I agree with the policy choice made by the millions of
California voters," he said. But given the broader stakes for the power
of Congress to regulate commerce, he added, "our duty to uphold the
application of the federal statute was pellucidly clear."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/politics/25memo.html?th&emc=th

Personally, I think both decisions were wrong. The legal arguments are
narrow, but they could have swung the other way without doing major
damage to other principles people rely on. There was a time when courts
ruled that government could use eminent domain for its own purposes, but
had no business subsidizing private businesses merely because they might
have a good impact on the local community. That view was displaced in the
late 19th century by elements in the Republican Party that wanted more
government partnership with business development. At the time, most of
the people who objected were Democrats, and their political descendants
are now mostly Republicans.

As to the medical marijuana initiative, one thing I appreciate about
Rehnquist and Scalia is their efforts to scale back how much Congress can
do in the name of "regulating interstate commerce." I wish they had taken
the bull by the horns on this case. There is no interstate commerce in
producing small quantities of marijuana for medically-prescribed personal
use. Congress isn't trying to foster an interstate market, it is trying
to suppress an interstate market. It makes a difference in how regulatory
powers apply.

But anyway, I was interested to see a Supreme Court justice flatly say, I
didn't personally approve of the way these cases turned out.

Siarlys
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://gcfl.net/pipermail/gcfl-discuss/attachments/20050828/8c96d8ca/attachment.htm