Thomas Sowell: Justice Stevens Did Lasting Damage to the Country

[PoliCon]

April 13, 2010 12:00 A.M.
Good Riddance!
When Republicans appoint justices like John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court, it does lasting damage to the country.

When Supreme Court Justices retire, there is usually some pious talk about their “service,” especially when it has been a long “service.” But the careers of all too many of these retiring jurists, including currently retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, have been an enormous disservice to this country.

Justice Stevens was on the high court for 35 years — more’s the pity, or the disgrace. Justice Stevens voted to sustain racial quotas, created “rights” out of thin air for terrorists, and took away American citizens’ rights to their own homes in the infamous Kelo decision of 2005.

The Constitution of the United States says that the government must pay “just compensation” for seizing a citizen’s private property for “public use.” In other words, if the government has to build a reservoir or bridge, and your property is in the way, they can take that property, provided that they pay you its value.

What has happened over the years, however, is that judges have eroded this protection and expanded the government’s power — as they have in other issues. This trend reached its logical extreme in the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London. This case involved local government officials’ seizing homes and businesses — not for “public use” as the Constitution specifies, but to turn this private property over to other private parties who would build more upscale facilities that would bring in more tax revenues.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the Supreme Court opinion that expanded the Constitution’s authorization of seizing private property for “public use” to seizing private property for a “public purpose.” And who would define what a “public purpose” is? Basically, those who were doing the seizing. As Justice Stevens put it, the government authorities’ assessment of a proper “public purpose” was entitled to “great respect” by the courts.

Let’s go back to square one. Just who was this provision of the Constitution supposed to restrict? Answer: government officials. And to whom would Justice Stevens defer? Answer: government officials. Why would those who wrote the Constitution waste good ink putting that protection in there, if not to protect citizens from the very government officials to whom Justice Stevens deferred?

John Paul Stevens is a classic example of what has been wrong with too many Republicans’ appointments to the Supreme Court. The biggest argument in favor of nominating him was that he could be confirmed by the Senate without a fight.

Democratic presidents appoint judges who will push their political agenda from the federal bench, even if that requires stretching and twisting the Constitution to reach their goals.

Republicans too often appoint judges whose confirmation will not require a big fight with the Democrats. You can always avoid a fight by surrendering, and a whole wing of the Republican party long ago mastered the art of preemptive surrender.

The net result has been a whole string of Republican justices of the Supreme Court carrying out the Democrats’ agenda, in disregard of the Constitution. John Paul Stevens has been just one.

There may have been some excuse for President Ford’s picking such a man in order to avoid a fight, at a time when he was an unelected president who came into office in the wake of Richard Nixon’s resignation in disgrace after Watergate, which created lasting damage to the public’s support of the Republican party.

But there was no such excuse for the elder President Bush’s appointing David Souter, much less for President Eisenhower, with back-to-back landslide victories at the polls, to inflict William J. Brennan on the country.

In light of these justices’ records, and in view of how long justices remain on the court, nominating such people was close to criminal negligence.

If and when the Republicans return to power in Washington, we can only hope that they remember what got them suddenly and unceremoniously dumped out of power the last time. Basically, it was running as Republicans and then governing as if they were Democrats, running up big deficits, with lots of earmarks and interfering with the market.

But their most lasting damage to the country has been putting people like John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

http://article.nationalreview.com/431149/good-riddance/thomas-sowell

[Rockntractor]

He sucked!:mad:

[Novaheart]

April 13, 2010 12:00 A.M.
Good Riddance!
When Republicans appoint justices like John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court, it does lasting damage to the country.

....................
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the Supreme Court opinion that expanded the Constitution’s authorization of seizing private property for “public use” to seizing private property for a “public purpose.” And who would define what a “public purpose” is? Basically, those who were doing the seizing. As Justice Stevens put it, the government authorities’ assessment of a proper “public purpose” was entitled to “great respect” by the courts.

..........................
John Paul Stevens is a classic example of what has been wrong with too many Republicans’ appointments to the Supreme Court. The biggest argument in favor of nominating him was that he could be confirmed by the Senate without a fight.

Democratic presidents appoint judges who will push their political agenda from the federal bench, even if that requires stretching and twisting the Constitution to reach their goals.

Republicans too often appoint judges whose confirmation will not require a big fight with the Democrats.


— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.




We go through this every time a judge retires. Republicans are frustrated because they want a justice who will push their agenda. Of course, they don't express it that way, they say that they want a "strict constitutionalist". Well the answer to that remains the same- if simply being able to read the Constitution were sufficient for the job, a third grader could do it as well as anyone else. But as much as some Republicans despise this when it works against them, the Constitution while being a set of specific words, is also a set of principles which extend into modern times and situations and are not limited to the understanding of the day.

Freedom of speech has been "expanded by activist judges" more than any other civil right. It has been expanded in correcting past wrongs where the "majority rules" attitude of the past was in direct conflict with the notion of protecting the right of the individual (even one with a group identity) from the tyranny of the majority. It has been expanded to include activities which were once punished as much for being uncivil as for being offensive, but which nonetheless few here would argue are not protected. And it has been expanded to include electronic communications, all of which have been at one time or another the object of attempts to censor for commercial, political, religious, or social reasons.

So why do people get so upset? Especially those who consider themselves conservative? It's because justices of the Supreme Court, with some exceptions, aspire to be remembered as a GREAT LEGAL MIND.

Can you make a qualified statement that Justice Stevens isn't a great legal mind? I am willing to bet that no one here, me included, and not Thomas Sowell either, has sat down with pen and paper and done a tally sheet for Justice Stevens, a sheet with 3 columns : agree, disagree, don'tknow/care.

Sowell complains about the eminent domain case. EVERYONE complained about the ED case. Liberals screamed! Conservatives screamed! Everyone hated that ruling, because it meant that no one was safe. State legislatures rushed into session to pass laws against eminent domain, and bless their evil little hearts for getting one thing right.

But Justice Stevens also wrote the dissent in Michigan State Police v Sitz 1990

http://www.getmadd.com/MICHIGANvsSITZdissent.htm

While Rehnquist, White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Blackmun rubber stamped a trampling of the Fourth Amendment and the very notion of liberty, Stevens dissented. It's not his fault that he was out numbered. Stevens, Brennan, and Marshall voted to uphold the Fourth Amendment. So let's not hear blanket statement about what "strict constructionist justices" would do.

Your strict constructionists sold out the fourth amendment for the illusion of safety.

[Rockntractor]

We go through this every time a judge retires. Republicans are frustrated because they want a justice who will push their agenda. Of course, they don't express it that way, they say that they want a "strict constitutionalist". Well the answer to that remains the same- if simply being able to read the Constitution were sufficient for the job, a third grader could do it as well as anyone else. But as much as some Republicans despise this when it works against them, the Constitution while being a set of specific words, is also a set of principles which extend into modern times and situations and are not limited to the understanding of the day.

Freedom of speech has been "expanded by activist judges" more than any other civil right. It has been expanded in correcting past wrongs where the "majority rules" attitude of the past was in direct conflict with the notion of protecting the right of the individual (even one with a group identity) from the tyranny of the majority. It has been expanded to include activities which were once punished as much for being uncivil as for being offensive, but which nonetheless few here would argue are not protected. And it has been expanded to include electronic communications, all of which have been at one time or another the object of attempts to censor for commercial, political, religious, or social reasons.

So why do people get so upset? Especially those who consider themselves conservative? It's because justices of the Supreme Court, with some exceptions, aspire to be remembered as a GREAT LEGAL MIND.

Can you make a qualified statement that Justice Stevens isn't a great legal mind? I am willing to bet that no one here, me included, and not Thomas Sowell either, has sat down with pen and paper and done a tally sheet for Justice Stevens, a sheet with 3 columns : agree, disagree, don'tknow/care.

Sowell complains about the eminent domain case. EVERYONE complained about the ED case. Liberals screamed! Conservatives screamed! Everyone hated that ruling, because it meant that no one was safe. State legislatures rushed into session to pass laws against eminent domain, and bless their evil little hearts for getting one thing right.

But Justice Stevens also wrote the dissent in Michigan State Police v Sitz 1990

http://www.getmadd.com/MICHIGANvsSITZdissent.htm

While Rehnquist, White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Blackmun rubber stamped a trampling of the Fourth Amendment and the very notion of liberty, Stevens dissented. It's not his fault that he was out numbered. Stevens, Brennan, and Marshall voted to uphold the Fourth Amendment. So let's not hear blanket statement about what "strict constructionist justices" would do.

Your strict constructionists sold out the fourth amendment for the illusion of safety.

How many DUI's do you have?

[patriot45]

How many DUI's do you have?

Oooh! I had one in 1977. I learnt my lesson tho.

Drink at home!:D

[Novaheart]

How many DUI's do you have?

None. I don't drink. I also don't like being stopped and asked questions by police officers who have no probable cause to detain me.

Now it's my turn: Why do you hate liberty? Is the Fourth Amendment not clear enough for you? Sure, it gets in the way of law enforcement. Surely a house to house search in certain neighborhoods would be tremendously effective in finding illegal people and things. But I doubt that you could stomach a house to house search, even if it targeted all the right people. So why would you be OK with a gestapo checkpoint?

And let's not forget, that DUI checkpoints aren't the only kind we have these days. Long before Sitz, the US border patrol was violating the most basic rights of American citizens, detaining and interrogating them at "border crossings" which were not border crossings, and which were applied to US citizens traveling well within the borders of this country. Can you defend that with anything other than convenience?

[Rockntractor]

Oooh! I had one in 1977. I learnt my lesson tho.

Drink at home!:D
I have had two. My first was also 1977 and my last was 1984.
Neither was from a roadblock though.

[patriot45]

None. I don't drink. I also don't like being stopped and asked questions by police officers who have no probable cause to detain me.

Now it's my turn: Why do you hate liberty? Is the Fourth Amendment not clear enough for you? Sure, it gets in the way of law enforcement. Surely a house to house search in certain neighborhoods would be tremendously effective in finding illegal people and things. But I doubt that you could stomach a house to house search, even if it targeted all the right people. So why would you be OK with a gestapo checkpoint?

And let's not forget, that DUI checkpoints aren't the only kind we have these days. Long before Sitz, the US border patrol was violating the most basic rights of American citizens, detaining and interrogating them at "border crossings" which were not border crossings, and which were applied to US citizens traveling well within the borders of this country. Can you defend that with anything other than convenience?

Except for the I don't drink part, I agree with you! :D

[Rockntractor]

None. I don't drink. I also don't like being stopped and asked questions by police officers who have no probable cause to detain me.

Now it's my turn: Why do you hate liberty? Is the Fourth Amendment not clear enough for you? Sure, it gets in the way of law enforcement. Surely a house to house search in certain neighborhoods would be tremendously effective in finding illegal people and things. But I doubt that you could stomach a house to house search, even if it targeted all the right people. So why would you be OK with a gestapo checkpoint?

And let's not forget, that DUI checkpoints aren't the only kind we have these days. Long before Sitz, the US border patrol was violating the most basic rights of American citizens, detaining and interrogating them at "border crossings" which were not border crossings, and which were applied to US citizens traveling well within the borders of this country. Can you defend that with anything other than convenience?

Can't stand liberty! We should all be sold into slavery to the Chinese srarting with you!

[Novaheart]

If your eyes didn't tear up when you watched this, then you have no love for liberty.

Capt. Vasili Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck... maybe even a "recreational vehicle." And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
Captain Ramius: I suppose.
Capt. Vasili Borodin: No papers?
Captain Ramius: No papers, state to state.

And now, it isn't true.

[patriot45]

I have had two. My first was also 1977 and my last was 1984.
Neither was from a roadblock though.

Mine was I just moved back to N.Y. from Arkansas and it was pitcher nite! Bars stay open till 4 am there!!!

[Rockntractor]

All human life should cease so the Dolphins can take their rightful place at the top of the food chain.

Up yours with trees!

[patriot45]

All human life should cease so the Dolphins can take their rightful place at the top of the food chain.

Up yours with trees!

Manatee tastes like chicken!

[Rockntractor]

Mine was I just moved back to N.Y. from Arkansas and it was pitcher nite! Bars stay open till 4 am there!!!

I used to love to chug Ice cold pitchers, sometimes with a little tomato juice or V8!:D

[Rockntractor]

Manatee tastes like chicken!

Skinless boneless manatee is very healthful.

[lacarnut]

I used to love to chug Ice cold pitchers, sometimes with a little tomato juice or V8!:D

What... no tabasco sauce.

[Novaheart]

I have had two. My first was also 1977 and my last was 1984.
Neither was from a roadblock though.

See, they didn't need the roadblock to nab you.

And they lie.

The roadblock is permitted if they pull over every car, or every fourth, fifth,... tenth, etc... car. But if you make a legal turn to evade the roadblock (like turning right before you get to the roadblock) then they have police cars hiding in the side streets to pull you over. Now, what are the chances that you just happen to be the interval car and that you turned right? It's BS, they are violating the exception the judges have carved out for them. In short, it's cops being bad cops.

[Rockntractor]

See, they didn't need the roadblock to nab you.

And they lie.

The roadblock is permitted if they pull over every car, or every fourth, fifth,... tenth, etc... car. But if you make a legal turn to evade the roadblock (like turning right before you get to the roadblock) then they have police cars hiding in the side streets to pull you over. Now, what are the chances that you just happen to be the interval car and that you turned right? It's BS, they are violating the exception the judges have carved out for them. In short, it's cops being bad cops.
Actually I agree with you on this one. I'm being meaner than usual because it's almost tax day.

[patriot45]

See, they didn't need the roadblock to nab you.

And they lie.

The roadblock is permitted if they pull over every car, or every fourth, fifth,... tenth, etc... car. But if you make a legal turn to evade the roadblock (like turning right before you get to the roadblock) then they have police cars hiding in the side streets to pull you over. Now, what are the chances that you just happen to be the interval car and that you turned right? It's BS, they are violating the exception the judges have carved out for them. In short, it's cops being bad cops.

I said I agree with you!

I hate altering my route home to evade roadblocks!


We always get the heads up at the pub!! :D

[Rockntractor]

What... no tabasco sauce.

I toured the Tabasco plant in 03. I use Tabasco habenaro but my favorite is Chulua. I used to collect hot sauces but I ate most of my collection.:confused:

[patriot45]

I toured the Tabasco plant in 03. I use Tabasco habenaro but my favorite is Chulua. I used to collect hot sauces but I ate most of my collection.:confused:

I make my own. Its easy!

[Rockntractor]

I make my own. Its easy!
it is not really the same as a Tabasco style sauce, if you are ever in Louisiana tour the factory. they ferment it in wood barrels for a year before they bottle it.

What makes Original TABASCO® brand Pepper Sauce different from other pepper sauces?
First, it’s a special variety of fully-aged red pepper. Then it's the process. The pepper mash is allowed to ferment and age for up to three years in white oak barrels, much like fine wine, and every batch is personally inspected for color and aroma by a member of the McIlhenny family before final production. This time-honored method assures the unique flavor of Original TABASCO® Sauce which is now recognized around the world.

And because Original TABASCO® Sauce is highly concentrated and so rich in flavor, you use it more sparingly than other pepper sauces-so a bottle lasts a long time! (The average Original TABASCO® Sauce user consumes one two-ounce bottle in just short of one year.)
http://www.tabasco.com/info_booth/faq/what_different.cfm

[patriot45]

it is not really the same as a Tabasco style sauce, if you are ever in Louisiana tour the factory. they ferment it in wood barrels for a year before they bottle it.

Oh. I just make it and use it! Next time I'll put it in a barrell and wait a year.

[Rockntractor]

Oh. I just make it and use it! Next time I'll put it in a barrell and wait a year.
It forms it's own vinegar kinda like sauerkraut does.

[patriot45]

It forms it's own vinegar kinda like sauerkraut does.

When I concoct it in the kitchen you can't breathe! Its just as good fresh as out of a year old barrel!!

Trust me, I like heat!:D

[Constitutionally Speaking]

If your eyes didn't tear up when you watched this, then you have no love for liberty.

Capt. Vasili Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck... maybe even a "recreational vehicle." And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
Captain Ramius: I suppose.
Capt. Vasili Borodin: No papers?
Captain Ramius: No papers, state to state.

And now, it isn't true.

Great movie by the way, but the REASON it might not be true is because of justices like Stevens - who ignore the founding principles set out in the Constitution.

The ENTIRE basis for the document was to set forth a basis for governing the country that places the INDIVIDUAL as the sovereign entity. It was to RESTRICT the government and to PROTECT rights - of the individual citizen.

Stevens IGNORED that principle - he sided with giving government power at nearly every turn.

Whether it was the Kelo decision or the Hamden decision - you name it.

You also stated:


Constitution while being a set of specific words, is also a set of principles which extend into modern times and situations and are not limited to the understanding of the day.


I would ask you. Do you even know the meaning of the word principle?? Because, the most basic principle in the Constitution is the limiting of the power of the Federal government.

This "strict constructionist" argument is more than just being frustrated over individual decisions and your dismissal of the strict constructionist line of thought was in itself ignorant.

The discussion is about upholding the very foundations of our country or choosing to follow the fickle whims of the popular opinion of the moment - thus undermining the basic principles of freedom and individual liberty.

[PoliCon]

We go through this every time a judge retires. Republicans are frustrated because they want a justice who will push their agenda. Of course, they don't express it that way, they say that they want a "strict constitutionalist". Well the answer to that remains the same- if simply being able to read the Constitution were sufficient for the job, a third grader could do it as well as anyone else. But as much as some Republicans despise this when it works against them, the Constitution while being a set of specific words, is also a set of principles which extend into modern times and situations and are not limited to the understanding of the day. No . . . . We want judges that are going to stand up for the constitution not judges that are going to make rulings based on international law or other such SHIT. :mad: Take for example the Kilo v New London case - which by far is one of the very WORST decisions ever rendered by the court. :mad: Are you familiar with the case?


Freedom of speech has been "expanded by activist judges" more than any other civil right. It has been expanded in correcting past wrongs where the "majority rules" attitude of the past was in direct conflict with the notion of protecting the right of the individual (even one with a group identity) from the tyranny of the majority. It has been expanded to include activities which were once punished as much for being uncivil as for being offensive, but which nonetheless few here would argue are not protected. And it has been expanded to include electronic communications, all of which have been at one time or another the object of attempts to censor for commercial, political, religious, or social reasons. SO . . . you see sticking a crucifix in a jar of piss as speech huh? And pornography as speech? But prayer - well that's not speech???:rolleyes:


So why do people get so upset? Especially those who consider themselves conservative? It's because justices of the Supreme Court, with some exceptions, aspire to be remembered as a GREAT LEGAL MIND.

Can you make a qualified statement that Justice Stevens isn't a great legal mind? I am willing to bet that no one here, me included, and not Thomas Sowell either, has sat down with pen and paper and done a tally sheet for Justice Stevens, a sheet with 3 columns : agree, disagree, don't know/care. 10 to 1 that that conservatives will disagree with Stevens on 70% or more of his decisions - AND - where there is agreement - it will be cases were you would have to be a a fucktard not to agree. :rolleyes:


Sowell complains about the eminent domain case. EVERYONE complained about the ED case. Liberals screamed! Conservatives screamed! Everyone hated that ruling, because it meant that no one was safe. State legislatures rushed into session to pass laws against eminent domain, and bless their evil little hearts for getting one thing right.

But Justice Stevens also wrote the dissent in Michigan State Police v Sitz 1990

http://www.getmadd.com/MICHIGANvsSITZdissent.htm

While Rehnquist, White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Blackmun rubber stamped a trampling of the Fourth Amendment and the very notion of liberty, Stevens dissented. It's not his fault that he was out numbered. Stevens, Brennan, and Marshall voted to uphold the Fourth Amendment. So let's not hear blanket statement about what "strict constructionist justices" would do.

Your strict constructionists sold out the fourth amendment for the illusion of safety. Have you ever even bothered to read your constitution?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Do you understand the concept of unreasonable?

[noonwitch]

I said I agree with you!

I hate altering my route home to evade roadblocks!


We always get the heads up at the pub!! :D



It's even better to have a good bar in walking distance from your house.

[megimoo]

When Supreme Court justices retire, there is usually some pious talk about their "service," especially when it has been a long "service." But the careers of all too many of these retiring jurists, including currently retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, have been an enormous disservice to this country.

Justice Stevens was on the high court for 35 years -- more's the pity, or the disgrace. Justice Stevens voted to sustain racial quotas, created "rights" out of thin air for terrorists and took away American citizens' rights to their own homes in the infamous "Kelo" decision of 2005.
2009ThomasSowellcolsig_135p

The Constitution of the United States says that the government must pay "just compensation" for seizing a citizen's private property for "public use." In other words, if the government has to build a reservoir or bridge and your property is in the way, they can take that property, provided that they pay you its value.

What has happened over the years, however, is that judges have eroded this protection and expanded the government's power -- as they have in other issues. This trend reached its logical extreme in the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London. This case involved local government officials seizing homes and businesses -- not for "public use" as the Constitution specified, but to turn this private property over to other private parties, to build more upscale facilities that would bring in more tax revenues.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the Supreme Court opinion that expanded the Constitution's authorization of seizing private property for "public use" to seizing private property for a "public purpose." And who would define what a "public purpose" is? Basically, those who were doing the seizing. As Justice Stevens put it, the government authorities' assessment of a proper "public purpose" was entitled to "great respect" by the courts.

Let's go back to square one. Just who was this provision of the Constitution supposed to restrict? Answer: government officials. And to whom would Justice Stevens defer: government officials. Why would those who wrote the Constitution waste good ink putting that protection in there if not to protect citizens from the very government officials to whom Justice Stevens deferred?

John Paul Stevens is a classic example of what has been wrong with too many Republicans' appointments to the Supreme Court. The biggest argument in favor of nominating him was that he could be confirmed by the Senate without a fight.

Democratic Presidents appoint judges who will push their political agenda from the federal bench, even if that requires stretching and twisting the Constitution to reach their goals.

Republicans too often appoint judges whose confirmation will not require a big fight with the Democrats. You can always avoid a fight by surrendering, and a whole wing of the Republican Party has long ago mastered the art of pre-emptive surrender.

The net result has been a whole string of Republican justices of the Supreme Court carrying out the Democrats' agenda, in disregard of the Constitution. John Paul Stevens has been just one.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Thomas+Sowell%3a+Justice+Ste vens+did+lasting+damage+to+the+country&articleId=e5da754c-a5c4-4492-bf5a-65110c7f433b

[Molon Labe]

Great piece by Sowell. He's usually on the mark.


Why would those who wrote the Constitution waste good ink putting that protection in there if not to protect citizens from the very government officials to whom Justice Stevens deferred

History has shown that Stevens wasn't the civil rights advocate they painted him to be when he was being nominated. Just another judge who legislated away freedoms.

[PoliCon]

LATE AS USUAL.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=27381

[fettpett]

All human life should cease so the Dolphins can take their rightful place at the top of the food chain.

Up yours with trees!

bah, they are already the most intelligent creatures on the Planet followed by the mice then humans...:cool:

[PoliCon]

bah, they are already the most intelligent creatures on the Planet followed by the mice then humans...:cool:

Actually - I believe the Mice are the superior lifeforms . . . 42 and all that . . .