Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress.

[pegwinn]

How do you know an ‘activist judge’ failed to ‘simply read the constitution and apply it’?

It's not difficult.

Cite an example, then.

Case Law and Precedent are often wrong.

According to whom? Cite an example.

The Constitution is to be read literally.

According to what authority?

The first was asked and answered before. Scroll back, read, digest, repeat as needed.
The second would be any precedent that was later overturned. Feel free to google it.
Common sense.

Oh, and I note you still haven't sourced your own assertion. So, scroll back, take note, find your source and post it. Happy New Year.

 

[johnwk]

How do you know an ‘activist judge’ failed to ‘simply read the constitution and apply it’?

1. When they make a word in the Constitution mean something other than its meaning as understood when the Constitution was framed and ratified.


2. When their decision is not in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted.


JWK



"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

Wow, you really don't see it, do you...

And what is it that I'm not seeing?

JWK

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would you make such a charge when I want nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates?


(1) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.,


(2) judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

(3) The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour


(4) The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

At the top of the thread, which has since been deleted but can be found HERE, I gave a specific example in which Justice Stevens when writing the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005), ignored (1), a fundamental rule of constitutional law requiring words in our Constitution to be understood as they were when the Constitution was adopted, and (2), ignored enforcing the legislative intent under which the Fifth Amendment was adopted as applied to rights associated with property ownership.

My position has nothing to do with wanting “judges to be harrassed when they make rulings I don't like, but rather, it is to give an opportunity to a judge or Justice, prior to impeachment, to establish his/her opinion is in harmony with fundamental rules of constitutional law and in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution.

Why do you charge me with wanting to harass judges when my object is wanting nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates in clear language?

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

A judicial ruling that no more than debatable as to its correct interpretation of the Constitution is not an impeachable offense.

We are not talking about interpretations of what our Constitution means. We are talking about following the fundamental rules of constitutional law, and enforcing the documented legislative intent of our Constitution, and my example was the Kelo decision.


JWK

There is no constitutional law that makes Supreme Court opinions criminal. The constitutional law basis for impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors.

By your logic, legislators should be expelled for passing laws that are later found unconstitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They offend me when they fail to simply read the constitution and apply it.

How do you know an ‘activist judge’ failed to ‘simply read the constitution and apply it’?

1. When they make a word in the Constitution mean something other than its meaning as understood when the Constitution was framed and ratified.


2. When their decision is not in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted.


JWK



"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

Supreme Court justices are hardly bound by law to the musings of some long dead politician in some letter he wrote 200 years ago.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would you make such a charge when I want nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates?


(1) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.,


(2) judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

(3) The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour


(4) The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

At the top of the thread, which has since been deleted but can be found HERE, I gave a specific example in which Justice Stevens when writing the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005), ignored (1), a fundamental rule of constitutional law requiring words in our Constitution to be understood as they were when the Constitution was adopted, and (2), ignored enforcing the legislative intent under which the Fifth Amendment was adopted as applied to rights associated with property ownership.

My position has nothing to do with wanting “judges to be harrassed when they make rulings I don't like, but rather, it is to give an opportunity to a judge or Justice, prior to impeachment, to establish his/her opinion is in harmony with fundamental rules of constitutional law and in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution.

Why do you charge me with wanting to harass judges when my object is wanting nothing more than what our Constitution stipulates in clear language?

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

A judicial ruling that no more than debatable as to its correct interpretation of the Constitution is not an impeachable offense.

We are not talking about interpretations of what our Constitution means. We are talking about following the fundamental rules of constitutional law, and enforcing the documented legislative intent of our Constitution, and my example was the Kelo decision.


JWK

Do you agree with me that the Supreme Court erred in Roe v Wade when it gave protections to the fetus after the first trimester,

because in order to do so it had to finds rights for the fetus in the Constitution where none exist?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[What the hell are you smoking? What part of "subpoenaed" sounds like "arrested" to YOU?

BOB SCHIEFFER: Would you send the capital police down to arrest him?

GINGRICH: If you had to.

Gingrich: Send U.S. Marshals to compel ‘radical’ judges to explain rulings - Election 2012 - The Washington Post

 

[JakeStarkey]

There's no getting through to johnwk on this. He just keeps repeating himself over and over and spamming the same shit or dresses up old shit too look like new shit.

I've tried for a long time now. You may as well be posting to a brick wall.

On what specific points which I have posted is it that there's no getting through to me? Eh?

In addition, do you consider it “spam” when a pinko syndicated news columnist has their propaganda appearing in almost every major news paper? Does it really bother you that I am attempting to level the playing field?

How about not personalizing the thread and stick to the subject matter, and state your specific objections to the words I have posted.

JWK

What you are printing does not meet the intent of the Constitution.

Your personal beliefs mean nothing to the point, John.

End of story.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Case Law and Precedent are often wrong. The Constitution is the literal law of the land. But, since you stated that judges are required to follow precedent can you please source that. My understanding was that precedent is something to be considered in the totality of the decision but wasn't legally binding.

Then it seems that you lack understanding, which explains why you are standing upon a faulty position. You might want to start by looking up the difference between binding and persuasive precedents.

The first problem is that people are sitting here expecting judges and the judiciary to operate as a perfect system, as if failure to provide perfect results is evidence of malice by the actors. This is a foolish notion.

The second problem is that people expect the constitution to be perfect and provide perfection, and that any failure by any branch of the government is evidence of malice by the actors. This is also a foolish notion.

The third problem is that people believe that the constitution was written with specific, microscopically accurate, "intentions" or "meanings" and that the founders only ratified the constitution based on the notion that it establish precisely certain political beliefs and persuasions as valid, and that any "interpreting" that does not agree with one's personal views of intentions and interpretations of what the constitution does, should, or means to say is evidence of "activism" by judge's. This, like the above, are foolish notions.


The constitution establishes the Judicial branch as that part of government that will settle all questions of law and equity arising under the constitution and the laws of the United States. "Settling all questions of law" is nothing more than a fancy way of saying that the Judicial branch is given the duty of interpreting the laws and constitution when the questions are put before it.

The constitution is noticeably, and importantly, silent on creating a mode of court systems. Instead, the constitution merely establishes that courts will exist. Our common law system predates the constitution. The founders recognized that in designating a Judicial branch to possess certain powers and duties of government, those courts would operate in those ways that they've always been understood to operate. That included honoring precedent, upholding stare decisis, judicial review and the nullification of unconstitutional laws, etc. These were things that the founders understood to be within the scope of normal and necessary judicial power. The founders did not excise these from what constituted the "judicial power of the united States." Instead, the constitution grants these powers to the Judicial branch.

To say that "case law and precedent can be wrong" is, at best, a very clumsy thing to say. Yes, a court's decision can be wrong. And that is why we have levels of appellate courts. But to disregard the importance and necessity of stare decisis shows a horrible ignorance and a juvenile foolishness. The judicial power, granted by the constitution to the courts, is THE POWER TO DECIDE QUESTIONS OF LAW. In that sense, case law CANNOT be wrong, strictly speaking. The power was granted to the court, which make the decision, and therefore correct if we strictly follow the words of the constitution. It is through the appellate process by which a court's decision can be overturned. That, then, yields to a new problem. One circuit's appellate court could answer the question one way, while the same question can come to a different circuit who answers the question another way. Or, the Supreme court could answer the question one way, and a different way next week, or next year, or next century. How, then, does the constitution maintain any relevance and consistency? The answer to that is established in two hundred years of case law and precedent, consistent with the judicial powers of a common law system that existed prior to the constitution, and which the constitution understood to exist when granting judicial power to the Judicial branch. The very case law and precedent you decry is exactly what protects us from flippant application of the law, from judicial activism that would allow a judge to throw you in jail just because he doesn't like your hair color and would allow you no recourse, from a complete lack of consistency or rationality within the application of our laws, which would allow the rest of government nearly unfettered ability to abuse and infringe upon the people.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The Constitution is to be read literally.

I bet you didn't known this, but parts of the constitution were written with the purpose of letting differing sides think each was getting their way. But if we want to be literal, we could always disband the Air Force. Is that where you want to go?

 

[Inthemiddle]

How do you know an ‘activist judge’ failed to ‘simply read the constitution and apply it’?

Cite an example, then.

According to whom? Cite an example.

The Constitution is to be read literally.

According to what authority?

Dred Scott
Plessy v Ferguson

those were case law, and, if we were to accept your interpretation, utterly irreversible because they are part of the Constitution.

Where did anyone say utterly irreversible? And where did anyone say that case law is a part of the constitution?

 

[paperview]

The Constitution is to be read literally.

I bet you didn't known this, but parts of the constitution were written with the purpose of letting differing sides think each was getting their way. But if we want to be literal, we could always disband the Air Force. Is that where you want to go?

Some years back, I heard a panel of constitutional scholars on C-Span discussing the various interpretations of the Constitution, the challenges, the wording..all the things people for centuries have been arguing about...it was a fascinating discussion.

One little gem stuck with me that I shall never forget:

The only thing the Founders insured when arguing for the wording in the Constitution, was that people, forever, would be arguing over the wording of the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What the hell are you smoking? What part of "subpoenaed" sounds like "arrested" to YOU?

It doesn’t make any difference – subpoena or arrest, both are outrageous and un-Constitutional, a violation of separation doctrine and an attack on an independent judiciary. It’s a police-state mentality.

It’s remarkable the extent to which the partisan right will go to defend one of its own.

Dred Scott
Plessy v Ferguson

those were case law, and, if we were to accept your interpretation, utterly irreversible because they are part of the Constitution.

Yes, Dred Scott and Plessy were part of the Constitution at one time, a reflection of the imperfection of the American Nation and imperfection inherent in the courts. But Dred Scott was vacated by the 14th Amendment, and Plessy was overturned per a majority opinion in Brown.

Indeed, there are scores of rulings that the Court has overturned, some after a short period of time, such as Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.

In Lawrence the Court noted:

The doctrine of stare decisis is essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law. It is not, however, an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828 (1991) (“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it ‘is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ ”) (quoting Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 (1940))). In Casey we noted that when a Court is asked to overrule a precedent recognizing a constitutional liberty interest, individual or societal reliance on the existence of that liberty cautions with particular strength against reversing course. 505 U.S., at 855—856; see also id., at 844 (“Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt”). The holding in Bowers, however, has not induced detrimental reliance comparable to some instances where recognized individual rights are involved. Indeed, there has been no individual or societal reliance on Bowers of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding once there are compelling reasons to do so. Bowers itself causes uncertainty, for the precedents before and after its issuance contradict its central holding.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

This, then, is part of the overall process of judicial review, that precedent is ‘not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision.’

What do Dred Scott, Plessy, and Bowers all have in common? They all restricted civil liberties – ultimately determined anathema to the Constitution.

And as noted, no one stated that the courts were perfect, but the genius of the Anglo-American judicial tradition is its ability to ultimately find the truth in a matter, and that truth can only be realized through an independent judiciary.

 

[paperview]

What the hell are you smoking? What part of "subpoenaed" sounds like "arrested" to YOU?

It doesn’t make any difference – subpoena or arrest, both are outrageous and un-Constitutional, a violation of separation doctrine and an attack on an independent judiciary. It’s a police-state mentality.

It’s remarkable the extent to which the partisan right will go to defend one of its own.

Dred Scott
Plessy v Ferguson

those were case law, and, if we were to accept your interpretation, utterly irreversible because they are part of the Constitution.

Yes, Dred Scott and Plessy were part of the Constitution at one time, a reflection of the imperfection of the American Nation and imperfection inherent in the courts. But Dred Scott was vacated by the 14th Amendment, and Plessy was overturned per a majority opinion in Brown.

Indeed, there are scores of rulings that the Court has overturned, some after a short period of time, such as Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.

In Lawrence the Court noted:

The doctrine of stare decisis is essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law. It is not, however, an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828 (1991) (“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it ‘is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ ”) (quoting Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 (1940))). In Casey we noted that when a Court is asked to overrule a precedent recognizing a constitutional liberty interest, individual or societal reliance on the existence of that liberty cautions with particular strength against reversing course. 505 U.S., at 855—856; see also id., at 844 (“Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt”). The holding in Bowers, however, has not induced detrimental reliance comparable to some instances where recognized individual rights are involved. Indeed, there has been no individual or societal reliance on Bowers of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding once there are compelling reasons to do so. Bowers itself causes uncertainty, for the precedents before and after its issuance contradict its central holding.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

This, then, is part of the overall process of judicial review, that precedent is ‘not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision.’

What do Dred Scott, Plessy, and Bowers all have in common? They all restricted civil liberties – ultimately determined anathema to the Constitution.

And as noted, no one stated that the courts were perfect, but the genius of the Anglo-American judicial tradition is its ability to ultimately find the truth in a matter, and that truth can only be realized through an independent judiciary.

Bravo!

 

[johnwk]

There's no getting through to johnwk on this. He just keeps repeating himself over and over and spamming the same shit or dresses up old shit too look like new shit.

I've tried for a long time now. You may as well be posting to a brick wall.

On what specific points which I have posted is it that there's no getting through to me? Eh?

In addition, do you consider it “spam” when a pinko syndicated news columnist has their propaganda appearing in almost every major news paper? Does it really bother you that I am attempting to level the playing field?

How about not personalizing the thread and stick to the subject matter, and state your specific objections to the words I have posted.

JWK

What you are printing does not meet the intent of the Constitution.

Your personal beliefs mean nothing to the point, John.

End of story.

What specifically have I posted in the thread which is not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted? I have no problem being corrected if I post inaccurate information, and like to be accurate in my posts, especially when it comes to the legislative intent of our Constitution.

JWK

 

[johnwk]

Tell us what Supreme Court decisions you like, in terms of outcome, but concede were not constitutionally sound.

Huh? My object, which I thought I explained, is that Supreme Court decisions should all be arrived at following (1) the fundamental rules of constitutional law, and (2) be in harmony with the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted.

I also gave a specific example, the Kelo case in which a fundamental rule of constitutional law was ignored and the decision is not in harmony with the intentions for which the Fifth Amendment was adopted with respect to rights associated with property ownership.

JWK


Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote.

The interpretation in the Kelo case already had precedents supporting it.

My question to you was:

Are there any Supreme Court decisions you like, regarding the outcome, but are willing to admit were wrong according to your view of how the Constitution should have applied.

For example, someone might like the idea of a constitutionally protected right to abortion, but might also believe that Roe v. Wade (which protected that right) was not constitutionally sound.

Let me remind you that our Constitution is the “precedent”, and decisions which violate the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, and/or ignore the fundamental rules of constitutional law in arriving at an opinion are transgressions of our constitutionally limited system of government.

In Kelo, Justice Sevens admitted the meaning of “public use” as understood by our founding fathers was being ignored, and thus, his decision violates a fundamental rule of constitutional law!

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) See: 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, constitutional construction, meaning of Language

Additionally, Justice Stevens’ written opinion is not in harmony with the very intentions for which the Fifth Amendment was adopted as applied to rights associated with property ownership.

On the other hand Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, documents the meaning of the phrase “public use” as it was understood during the time the Constitution was adopted, and is far different from that given by Stevens’ precedent setting definitions which are far different that that understood by our founders. Justice Thomas then rightfully concludes :


”The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham's high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O'Connor's dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners' favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”

In regard to your question, the only decisions I “like” are those which follow the fundamental rules of Constitutional law and are in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution’s provisions were adopted. And my reason is, to not follow these guidelines is to render our constitutionally limited system of government meaningless and subordinate to those who we elected to preserve and protect it. If I rejoiced in a Court’s decision that benefited me but ignored the fundamental rules of constitutional law, and in so doing oppressed my neighbor and deprived him in a just cause, would I not be as guilty as the Court itself which engaged in an act of tyranny? In other words, I am somewhat offended that you would ask me if I “like” tyranny?

JWK



We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

.

 

[pegwinn]

The Constitution is to be read literally.

I bet you didn't known this, but parts of the constitution were written with the purpose of letting differing sides think each was getting their way. But if we want to be literal, we could always disband the Air Force. Is that where you want to go?

You're right, I didn't known this. Source?

As to the Air Force.... Originally they were a part of the Army which is explicitly authorized. Once the separation of the services was complete there should have been an Amendment to Article 1 Section 8.

... One little gem stuck with me that I shall never forget:

The only thing the Founders insured when arguing for the wording in the Constitution, was that people, forever, would be arguing over the wording of the Constitution.

That is a very true statement. I like to think the arguments are educational for all concerned. If nothing else it's a good reason to enjoy a cold one try to stretch the brain.

My take on using a literal reading as often as possible is based on personal experience with military law, various .gov regulations, and serving on a criminal jury. Even the position of original intent doesn't sit well I'm afraid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

johnwk engages in the perfect demogogic style: deny that he has been sufficiently and correctly answered, then asks for more evidence.

john is fail.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Dred Scott
Plessy v Ferguson

those were case law, and, if we were to accept your interpretation, utterly irreversible because they are part of the Constitution.

Yes, Dred Scott and Plessy were part of the Constitution at one time, a reflection of the imperfection of the American Nation and imperfection inherent in the courts. But Dred Scott was vacated by the 14th Amendment, and Plessy was overturned per a majority opinion in Brown.

Indeed, there are scores of rulings that the Court has overturned, some after a short period of time, such as Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.

In Lawrence the Court noted:

The doctrine of stare decisis is essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law. It is not, however, an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828 (1991) (“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it ‘is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ ”) (quoting Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 (1940))). In Casey we noted that when a Court is asked to overrule a precedent recognizing a constitutional liberty interest, individual or societal reliance on the existence of that liberty cautions with particular strength against reversing course. 505 U.S., at 855—856; see also id., at 844 (“Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt”). The holding in Bowers, however, has not induced detrimental reliance comparable to some instances where recognized individual rights are involved. Indeed, there has been no individual or societal reliance on Bowers of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding once there are compelling reasons to do so. Bowers itself causes uncertainty, for the precedents before and after its issuance contradict its central holding.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

This, then, is part of the overall process of judicial review, that precedent is ‘not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision.’

What do Dred Scott, Plessy, and Bowers all have in common? They all restricted civil liberties – ultimately determined anathema to the Constitution.

And as noted, no one stated that the courts were perfect, but the genius of the Anglo-American judicial tradition is its ability to ultimately find the truth in a matter, and that truth can only be realized through an independent judiciary.

Neither of those were ever part of the Constitution, they were part of some of the more pathetic decisions made by SCOTUS, and were later overturned by SCOTUS. The only way to change the Constitution is through amendments. not through court decisions. Idiots actually understand this, which is why you are actually dumber than an idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What the hell are you smoking? What part of "subpoenaed" sounds like "arrested" to YOU?

It doesn’t make any difference – subpoena or arrest, both are outrageous and un-Constitutional, a violation of separation doctrine and an attack on an independent judiciary. It’s a police-state mentality.

It’s remarkable the extent to which the partisan right will go to defend one of its own.



Yes, Dred Scott and Plessy were part of the Constitution at one time, a reflection of the imperfection of the American Nation and imperfection inherent in the courts. But Dred Scott was vacated by the 14th Amendment, and Plessy was overturned per a majority opinion in Brown.

Indeed, there are scores of rulings that the Court has overturned, some after a short period of time, such as Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.

In Lawrence the Court noted:

The doctrine of stare decisis is essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law. It is not, however, an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828 (1991) (“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it ‘is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ ”) (quoting Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 (1940))). In Casey we noted that when a Court is asked to overrule a precedent recognizing a constitutional liberty interest, individual or societal reliance on the existence of that liberty cautions with particular strength against reversing course. 505 U.S., at 855—856; see also id., at 844 (“Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt”). The holding in Bowers, however, has not induced detrimental reliance comparable to some instances where recognized individual rights are involved. Indeed, there has been no individual or societal reliance on Bowers of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding once there are compelling reasons to do so. Bowers itself causes uncertainty, for the precedents before and after its issuance contradict its central holding.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

This, then, is part of the overall process of judicial review, that precedent is ‘not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision.’

What do Dred Scott, Plessy, and Bowers all have in common? They all restricted civil liberties – ultimately determined anathema to the Constitution.

And as noted, no one stated that the courts were perfect, but the genius of the Anglo-American judicial tradition is its ability to ultimately find the truth in a matter, and that truth can only be realized through an independent judiciary.

Bravo!

Another person who is actually dumber than an idiot.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I also gave a specific example, the Kelo case…

Of which you clearly don’t understand.

Kelo had nothing to do with not being in ‘harmony with the intentions for which the Fifth Amendment was adopted with respect to rights associated with property ownership.’ At issue only was the definition of ‘public use,’ and if the City’s development plan met the public use requirement, as established per precedent. Indeed, Ms. Kelo was requesting the Court make her case an exception to the established definition:

…this is not a case in which the City is planning to open the condemned land--at least not in its entirety--to use by the general public. Nor will the private lessees of the land in any sense be required to operate like common carriers, making their services available to all comers. But although such a projected use would be sufficient to satisfy the public use requirement, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public." Id., at 244. Indeed, while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose." See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158-164 (1896). Thus, in a case upholding a mining company's use of an aerial bucket line to transport ore over property it did not own, Justice Holmes' opinion for the Court stressed "the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test." Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U. S. 527, 531 (1906).9 We have repeatedly and consistently rejected that narrow test ever since.

The majority, therefore, merely followed the precedent established in Fallbrook and rejected the petitioners’ argument for a literal requirement.

Consequently:

The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City's development plan serves a "public purpose." Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.

KELO V. NEW LONDON