Tag Archives: courts

An Opportunity to Reverse Kelo

Posted on by
Reply

Kelo v City of New London was a 2005 case involving our Constitution’s 5th Amendment Takings Clause: a homeowner who didn’t want to sell her home in New London, CT, to a property developer who said he needed the property to finish out the development of shopping mall. New London agreed on the developer’s representation that his mall would produce more tax revenue for the city than the homeowner’s property tax remittances. In the resulting suit, the Supreme Court decided that government has the authority to commit such a Taking and redistribution for the public purpose of increasing government’s tax revenue.  The Court said that one man’s private purpose is superior to another’s so that other must surrender his property to the one.

What the Takings Clause actually says is

…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

For public use, not for public purpose, and certainly not for a private enterprise’s claimed public purpose.

Now a case is developing that should end in the Supreme Court and present the Court with an opportunity to reverse that shameful ruling.

A public school district in Texas is pursuing an eminent domain process to remove a 78-year-old man from the home that his family has owned for more than a century in order to build a high school football stadium parking lot.

The 78-yr-old homeowner’s daughter, Tara Upchurch:

I want you to understand what the significance of this place is for my father. It is where he played as a child with his grandparents, where he woke up 4 a.m. to milk cows, it’s where he spent 39 years happily married to my mom, and it’s where he raised a family, and it’s a place we never thought he would leave[.]

On the other hand,

Aldine ISD is planning to build a $50 million football field and parking lot on his property and is using eminent domain options after the Upchurch family rejected an initial offer to purchase the property last year, KPRC reported. Eminent domain allows the government to acquire private property for public use.

Aldine ISD wants it, and its desire is more important than a property owner’s…ownership. Well, then. That settles it. That’s what Kelo has wrought.

Private property ownership isn’t actually ownership: if another private entity wants it, all that one needs to do is to persuade a government or quasi-government that its desire is greater than the original owner’s ownership, and the owner must give it up.

This is the mess that Kelo caused, and this is the mess that the Supreme Court should get an opportunity to clean up, and it should clean it up.

More Coverup

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that President Joe Biden has had (and still has?) classified documents squirreled away in his garage at his house in Delaware, albeit protected by the presence of his Corvette. Recall, further, that Biden has had classified documents squirreled away in a variety of unsecure locations ever since he walked away with them when he was a Senator and had no legal ability to possess them anywhere. Among those unsecure locations is the library at the University of Delaware. And now,

Delaware’s highest court has blocked a request by conservative groups seeking to access President Joe Biden’s Senate papers at a state university.
The July 6 ruling by the Delaware Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that sided with the University of Delaware in denying a request from Judicial Watch and another group seeking access to the records, which Biden gifted to the public university in 2012.

But,

The university says Biden donated the documents on the condition they not be released until they have been “properly processed and archived.”

But, but: that was 11 years ago. Why is the University so slow in the processing and archiving? Its slowness raises other questions in my pea brain:

What classified documents are among those documents?

What information regarding Tara Reade, who accused Biden of sexual assault in 2020, is among those documents?

What else is the university hiding for Biden’s sake?

A Step in the Right Direction

Posted on by
Reply

The 6th Circuit overruled a Tennessee federal district court’s injunction, lifting it, and allowing a Tennessee law barring gender-related child abuse “gender-affirming” “care” for minors to go into effect. Per the AP, the appellate court ruled

[i]n a 2-1 ruling, the majority opinion stated that decisions on issues such as transgender care, which is considered an emerging policy issue, is better left to legislatures rather than judges[.]

This is a good start, and a strong step in the right direction. It’s also important to keep in mind the fact that the matter is still in the courts: the appellate court lifted an injunction; it did not uphold the law itself.

Decisions on issues such as transgender care, though, are even better left—are best left—in the hands of the parents. Government—at any level of governmental hierarchy—has no legitimate business inserting itself into a family’s internal affairs beyond protecting family members from abuse. Which “treatments” to alter a child’s gender away from his or her biological gender most assuredly is.

“Activist Judicial Opinion”

Posted on by
Reply

“Legal analysts” don’t like the preliminary injunction issued by a Federal district court judge that bars much of the Federal government and many of the individuals in it from telling, or even merely attempting to pressure, social media entities what those entities must permit and must bar from their Web sites.

Legal analysts on both CNN and MSNBC attacked a federal judge who found that the White House likely violated the First Amendment by claiming that his decision was an “activist judicial opinion” that “goes too far.”

CNN legal analyst Ellie Honig:

Yes, it’s a dramatic decision by this judge, if you read through it. He’s citing to literature and George Washington, and Ben Franklin. Here’s what really is astonishing to me. This is a conservative ideology that clearly comes through in this decision. … But the ruling itself is the opposite of judicial conservativism. This is one of the most aggressive, far-reaching rulings you’ll ever see.

Because upholding our individual free speech rights, adhering to the supreme Law of the Land, isn’t at all judicial conservatism.

And on MSNBC, Tulane University Professor Walter Isaacson:

I think Judge Doughty’s decision goes too far.
I think this is a little bit of a corrective but I clearly feel that in the end the decision will be refined somewhat, because government has to have the right to have its own free speech to push back when they see things on social media they think are dangerous[.]

It would have been good had Isaacson actually read the ruling. There is nothing at all in it that bars the government from push[ing] back when they see things on social media they think are dangerous. Quite the opposite:

The Court finds…that a preliminary injunction here would not prohibit government speech.

And [emphasis mine]

A government entity has the right to speak for itself and is entitled to say what it wishes and express the views it wishes to express. The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech; it does not regulate government speech.

And the government—the men and women who populate and animate government—have a plethora of outlets of their own:

the White House, for instance, the Senate, and the House all have their own Web sites, as do each of the several Federal Departments and agencies, and every Congressman in the Congress. And many of those Congressmen hold aperiodic town halls to talk directly with their constituents—all of them should, and those meetings should occur more frequently—but that’s the Congressmen’s choice. Nothing bars any Congressman from doing any of those direct-to-constituents conversations as often as a Congressman might wish.

And that doesn’t approach the interviews and op-eds each of those men and women are free to give and to write, along with the posts on the social media they tried to, and are now barred from, controlling.

This is how far Left the press is gone, that journalists actually think judges, and Justices, come to that, who adhere to the text of our Constitution as that Constitution and their oaths of office require, are “activist” while Justices, and judges, who rule in accordance with their personal views (or the press’) of societal circumstance are somehow…normal…and acting properly.

Misguided

Posted on by
Reply

A Federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction (meaning the matter must still go through the courts before anything becomes final) barring the Federal government from communicating with social-media companies with a view to influencing what those companies post or allow to be posted on their sites.

Some on the Left are objecting.

Some legal scholars have been skeptical that…courts could intervene without chilling legitimate government speech about controversial matters of public interest.

“Some legal scholars” are cynically distorting the situation. There is nothing in the judge’s ruling that bars government speech about controversial matters of public interest. The “government”—i.e., the men and women in government—remains entirely free to speak on any matters it wishes, and in any venue it wishes. The “government,” however, may not seek to tell—or even to try to influence—private enterprises what they might post or not post, or allow or not allow to be posted, on their sites.

The government has a plethora of outlets of its own: the White House, for instance, the Senate, and the House all have their own Web sites, as do each of the several Federal Departments and agencies, and every Congressman in the Congress. And many of those Congressmen hold aperiodic town halls to talk directly with their constituents—all of them should, and those meetings should occur more frequently—but that’s the Congressmen’s choice. Nothing bars any Congressman from doing any of those direct-to-constituents conversations as often as a Congressman might wish.

Furthermore, the judge noted in his injunction that

The Court finds…that a preliminary injunction here would not prohibit government speech.

And

A government entity has the right to speak for itself and is entitled to say what it wishes and express the views it wishes to express. The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech; it does not regulate government speech.

At bottom, and especially in light of that last—and the plethora of legitimate government outlets for its own speech—the answer to speech with which government disagrees is not to bar the speech (outside of deliberate and overt incitement to riot), but to answer it with their own speech.

The judge’s preliminary injunction ruling can be read here.