Connect The Dots

Posted on | July 1, 2010 | 24 Comments

by Smitty

Via Insty a few days back, Hoosier Daddy on Althouse has one of the
most insightful comments of the year:

Interestingly enough in the last several years there have been four big SCOTUS cases which IMHO, really define our freedoms and personal liberty Kelo property rights; Citizens United free speech; Heller 2nd amendment and now McDonald.
I hear a lot from liberals about how the right wants to curtail freedoms, we’re fascists yet when I look at where the liberal Justices ruled or dissented in those aforementioned cases I think it’s pretty clear who are the real curtailers of freedom and liberty.
After all when the State can take your property, restrict your political speech and disarm the populace, you really don’t have much left in the way of freedom.
I’d like to know what Kagan’s opinions are on those
cases.

Here is a handy summary for the less nerdy:

Case	Summary
Kelo	Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan which promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues. The Court held in a 5–4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The City eventually agreed to move Kelo’s house to a new location and to pay substantial additional compensation to other homeowners. The redeveloper was unable to obtain financing and had to abandon the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot.
Citizens United	Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The 5–4 decision resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air via video on demand a critical film about Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton’s image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act. The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lower court decision denied Citizens United’s motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from enforcing provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act which prevented the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic primaries.
Heller	District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private use in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are “arms” for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia’s regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.” “Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.”
McDonald	McDonald v. Chicago was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the issue of gun rights. The Court held that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights vis-à-vis the states. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s decision in NRA v. Chicago and remanded it back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment. The Court of Appeals had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas. The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.[3]

Back to Hoosier Daddy,

I hear a lot from liberals about how the right wants to curtail freedoms, we’re fascists yet when I look at where the liberal Justices ruled or dissented in those aforementioned cases I think it’s pretty clear who are the real
curtailers of freedom and liberty.

I think it’s clear that there has been some amount of effort by Social Conservatives (to whom I’m sympathetic) to attempt to legislate morality. Morality remains a subjective, individual topic. The libertarian character of the Constitution carries greater weight, in my opinion. The Left screams externally, then cheers internally when SoCons try to fret legislatively about what people are getting up to in private: any Constiutional damage is A-OK with the Left. They know they can always pervert any results down the road.
But the tacit rejection of the Constitiution implicit in the Lefty dissent on the court is worrisome. I’d support something to help
clear the decks of the SCOTUS just a little faster. For example, an Amendment allowing voters to treat the SCOTUS like Survivor, and vote for one retiree every four years, along with choosing a POTUS.
Also, I hope Elena Kagan’s nomination goes down in flames. I gather she’s one who views the Constiution more as a navigation hazard than a navigation aid.
These Lefty judges are inimical to the long term health of the Republic.

Category: Supreme Court

Comments

24 Responses to “Connect The Dots”

Joe
July 2nd, 2010 @ 4:37 am

“I’d like to know what Kagan’s opinions are on those cases [Kelo, Citizens United, Heller, McDonald].”

No you don’t. Well let me rephrase, you already know where Kagan would fall on those cases and it is opposite where you would like. Let’s not even kid ourselves of anything else.
Joe
July 2nd, 2010 @ 12:37 am

“I’d like to know what Kagan’s opinions are on those cases [Kelo, Citizens United, Heller, McDonald].”

No you don’t. Well let me rephrase, you already know where Kagan would fall on those cases and it is opposite where you would like. Let’s not even kid ourselves of anything else.
Estragon
July 2nd, 2010 @ 7:16 am

Um, am I Rip van Winkle here, or has the left’s policy preferences in regard to these freedoms not been known for nearly a century already? This isn’t new at all and, as Joe points out, if you don’t already know where Kagan will probably come down on these areas, you don’t really want to know.

A bit of nit-picking on Kelo, though. It is not a precedent in the sense that it controls future cases through the doctrine of stare decisis. The law wasn’t settled by the decision. It was 4 votes for the citizen’s rights, 4 votes for the government’s rights, and the deciding vote was Kennedy’s concurring opinion which didn’t admit this sort of thing necessarily always qualified as “public use,” but that in this particular case the plaintiff had failed to meet the burden of proof. Kennedy was somewhat muddled in his logic, but quite clear he was NOT joining the opinion of the other four.
Estragon
July 2nd, 2010 @ 3:16 am

Um, am I Rip van Winkle here, or has the left’s policy preferences in regard to these freedoms not been known for nearly a century already? This isn’t new at all and, as Joe points out, if you don’t already know where Kagan will probably come down on these areas, you don’t really want to know.

A bit of nit-picking on Kelo, though. It is not a precedent in the sense that it controls future cases through the doctrine of stare decisis. The law wasn’t settled by the decision. It was 4 votes for the citizen’s rights, 4 votes for the government’s rights, and the deciding vote was Kennedy’s concurring opinion which didn’t admit this sort of thing necessarily always qualified as “public use,” but that in this particular case the plaintiff had failed to meet the burden of proof. Kennedy was somewhat muddled in his logic, but quite clear he was NOT joining the opinion of the other four.
cbart
July 2nd, 2010 @ 10:50 am

As a social conservative, fiscal conservative, and general all around reactionary, I’d like to know what’s subjective about sticking a knife into the brain of a baby about to be born? Yes, some morality is subjective, but some is as objective as any fiscal policy. When it comes down to it, isn’t the right to bear arms a moral question? Sure you can prove statistically that it lowers crime, but even if it resulted in a modest increase in crime, wouldn’t it be a human right anyway?
I think the libertarians & fiscally conservative/socially liberal conservative types need to realize that without the social conservatives, we are going to be a socialist nation.
cbart
July 2nd, 2010 @ 6:50 am

As a social conservative, fiscal conservative, and general all around reactionary, I’d like to know what’s subjective about sticking a knife into the brain of a baby about to be born? Yes, some morality is subjective, but some is as objective as any fiscal policy. When it comes down to it, isn’t the right to bear arms a moral question? Sure you can prove statistically that it lowers crime, but even if it resulted in a modest increase in crime, wouldn’t it be a human right anyway?
I think the libertarians & fiscally conservative/socially liberal conservative types need to realize that without the social conservatives, we are going to be a socialist nation.
smitty
July 2nd, 2010 @ 10:52 am

@cbart,
The point I’m making has to do with at what level the problem is tackled.
While I agree fully with your point, what I’m arguing is that _where_ one chooses to deal with it has effects.
Attempting to legislate individual behavior at the Federal level promises to repeat the resounding success of Prohibition.
smitty
July 2nd, 2010 @ 6:52 am

@cbart,
The point I’m making has to do with at what level the problem is tackled.
While I agree fully with your point, what I’m arguing is that _where_ one chooses to deal with it has effects.
Attempting to legislate individual behavior at the Federal level promises to repeat the resounding success of Prohibition.
cbart
July 2nd, 2010 @ 11:06 am

I’d settle for a federal law that remands the issues to the states, but in the real now, when lap dances are decided by the supreme court, you have to work with what you have.

The above is true on most issues, but I’m not sure depriving someone of life without due process is not a federal issue.

Gosh, now I’m debating myself. Sorry.
cbart
July 2nd, 2010 @ 7:06 am

I’d settle for a federal law that remands the issues to the states, but in the real now, when lap dances are decided by the supreme court, you have to work with what you have.

The above is true on most issues, but I’m not sure depriving someone of life without due process is not a federal issue.

Gosh, now I’m debating myself. Sorry.
Bob Belvedere
July 2nd, 2010 @ 2:18 pm

Cbart: The thing is, we don’t need ‘a federal law that remands the issues to the states’ as we have the Tenth Amendment and the fact that The Constitution is silent on such matters. Therefore, any legislation, regulations, or court rulings by the national government on these issues are unconstitutional.

The idea here is to get back to the Founding principles and no longer accept that working with what you have is an option. We have an opportunity hear, for the first time in over a century, to work at the fundamental level.
Bob Belvedere
July 2nd, 2010 @ 10:18 am

Cbart: The thing is, we don’t need ‘a federal law that remands the issues to the states’ as we have the Tenth Amendment and the fact that The Constitution is silent on such matters. Therefore, any legislation, regulations, or court rulings by the national government on these issues are unconstitutional.

The idea here is to get back to the Founding principles and no longer accept that working with what you have is an option. We have an opportunity hear, for the first time in over a century, to work at the fundamental level.
Roxeanne de Luca
July 2nd, 2010 @ 2:47 pm

That’s you will be left to do, connecting dots and counting stars, after Kagan gets confirmed and Obama gets re-elected.

Whoa, gg, I thought you said something about the cocksure being stupid and the intelligent, full of doubt?

Ergo, under your own theory, you’re a moron.
Roxeanne de Luca
July 2nd, 2010 @ 10:47 am

That’s you will be left to do, connecting dots and counting stars, after Kagan gets confirmed and Obama gets re-elected.

Whoa, gg, I thought you said something about the cocksure being stupid and the intelligent, full of doubt?

Ergo, under your own theory, you’re a moron.
Bob Belvedere
July 2nd, 2010 @ 5:08 pm

Hey gg…you just crossed a line. Take back what you said about the lady, you sniveling little weasel.
Bob Belvedere
July 2nd, 2010 @ 1:08 pm

Hey gg…you just crossed a line. Take back what you said about the lady, you sniveling little weasel.
Bob Belvedere
July 2nd, 2010 @ 5:37 pm

There’s a thing called ‘manners’ and another one called ‘civilized behavior’ – something adults practice. It’s too bad you Bolshes have made a conscious decision to reject such standards of conduct. Western Civilization is crumbling because of it. As Jean Raspail would ask: Could this be one explanation?

PS: I know Roxeanne can handle herself just fine – she’s a helluva gal. I was just trying to do the Christian thing and save you from a fate worse than death – psychological torture when she strikes back and causes you to doubt your sanity because all of your beliefs are lying bloodied and tattered in the bowels of your mind. Now I realize that some people just need smackin’ upside the head with a 2×4.
Bob Belvedere
July 2nd, 2010 @ 1:37 pm

There’s a thing called ‘manners’ and another one called ‘civilized behavior’ – something adults practice. It’s too bad you Bolshes have made a conscious decision to reject such standards of conduct. Western Civilization is crumbling because of it. As Jean Raspail would ask: Could this be one explanation?

PS: I know Roxeanne can handle herself just fine – she’s a helluva gal. I was just trying to do the Christian thing and save you from a fate worse than death – psychological torture when she strikes back and causes you to doubt your sanity because all of your beliefs are lying bloodied and tattered in the bowels of your mind. Now I realize that some people just need smackin’ upside the head with a 2×4.
Adobe Walls
July 2nd, 2010 @ 5:45 pm

Bob what do you expect from a catamite?
Adobe Walls
July 2nd, 2010 @ 1:45 pm

Bob what do you expect from a catamite?
Steve in TN
July 2nd, 2010 @ 7:06 pm

Linked at Pax with comments. http://www.paxparabellum.com/2010/07/liberals-are-fascists-of-our-time.html

“These Lefty judges are inimical to the long term health of the Republic.”
Yep. Fascists usually are.
Steve in TN
July 2nd, 2010 @ 3:06 pm

Linked at Pax with comments. http://www.paxparabellum.com/2010/07/liberals-are-fascists-of-our-time.html

“These Lefty judges are inimical to the long term health of the Republic.”
Yep. Fascists usually are.
Adobe Walls
July 2nd, 2010 @ 8:26 pm

Someone forgot to flush again.
Adobe Walls
July 2nd, 2010 @ 4:26 pm

Someone forgot to flush again.