Justice David Souter has announced has announced his retirement from the US Supreme Court at the end of the 2008-09 term. For those who cherish freedom and abhor government intrusion, Souter decision must be looked upon with bitter sweet as his replacement is likely to be an even greater enemy of our Constitution. And while our Constitution was supposed to be the foundation upon which our federalist system would rest, it has become nothing more than a sandy plain, ignored whenever it is convenient.
The illustrious Barack Obama is sure to replace Souter with someone who will continue the courts recent trend of citing foreign court decisions and using “contemporary” standards, when weighing court actions, rather than using the Constitution itself as the pillar of our representative government.
Indeed, media reports have heaped praise upon Souter, citing his independence and his being a champion of the rule of law. Such prognostications are inaccurate. Souter has also been equally vilified and cheered for decisions rendered on school prayer and abortion. If these are the issues conservatives find so abhorrent about Souter then it should come as no surprise that the GOP is on the outs. School prayer, for example is the non-issue of this or any other century.
Clearly, public schools should not be a place for religious instruction or prayer, at least insofar as when it is organized by school representatives, who in turn are representatives of the government, a clear violation of the establishment clause in the first amendment. No this is not a decision that Souter should be remembered for or vilified. Souter should be remembered for the outrageous Supreme Court decision in the case of Kelo vs. New London, in that case the court declared Constitutional the act of seizing private property (under eminent domain) and giving that property to other private citizens as a means to boost tax revenue, citing the public use clause found in the fifth amendment. On that day the principal of private property (all ready on shaky ground by the mere existence of eminent domain statutes and property tax schemes) became virtually non-existent.
Under the Obama presidency when can expect the replacements for Ginsburg and Stevens to follow the same anti-constitutional track as they increase the power of an already intrusive federal government at the expense of the states. Indeed, the irony is practically unfathomable, considering that it is often reported that Obama was a professor of Constitutional law, what nonsense, Obama has made a career of ignoring said document, perhaps that was what he taught and now with Souter’s announcement we have heard repeatedly that Souter is a scholar of Constitutional history, for what purpose, so he would have a better understanding of what to disregard.
Links
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SCOTUS/story?id=7483045&page=1
