Blog @ MoreWhat.com

At least one analysis of SCOTUS that could be found in a general search drew the conclusion that Justices Kennedy, O’Connor and Souter formed a ‘moderate conservative alliance’ on the court to avoid moving too far in one direction. In Kelo v City of New London at least one example of that not being the case is apparent.

On June 25, 2005, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice O’Connor objected to the fact that an unelected (therefore voter-unaccountable) private nonprofit corporation was the primary beneficiary of the government taking. As a result, the dissenting opinion suggested that the use of this takings power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion— take from the poor, give to the rich— would become the norm, not the exception:

‘Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.’

That case doubles as a reference that would find some not being disappointed by the announcement that Justice David Souter will be retiring this summer at the end of the court’s current term. Whether Souter is activist or not, conservative or not is of no real consequence. Left or right the nominee choices for his replacement will be selected by someone who has been called the most liberal Senator in the United States when he held a seat for the State of Illinois. And for those who may think it is possible Barack Obama will nominate a conservative because he kept Robert Gates as SecDef don’t be so sure. He may have only kept Gates so if things go wrong he can again blame George Bush or simply Robert Gates for sabotaging his administration.

At times like these the question of whether on or not it is possible to be an impartial judge on any court by any person stands unanswered in many ways. But the idea that every time a vacancy needs to be replaced the analysis limits the conversation. All the talk is about each nominee’s willingness to vote liberal or conservative and the Senate decides based on which party has the most members. How pathetic is that?

Perhaps more pathetic is the lack of sincere interest in filling judicial vacancies with objective minds able to minimize their own personal bias when producing opinions or decisions.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 3rd, 2009 at 7:18 pm and is filed under Announcement, wordpress, United States, Law, Justice, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.