The Case For Retirement

Much has been made about Chief Justice William Rehnquist's decision to remain firmly planted on the bench of the Supreme Court. Many have questioned whether his health is such that he has the strength, both mental and physical, to carry out his duties. The decision recently announced in Kelo v. New London, however, makes a compelling case for the retirements of Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy and Souter.
These five Justices have essentially said that private property isn't private. Rush Limbaugh claims to have talent on loan from God. The Supremes have now declared that our property is merely on loan from the government, and can be taken for nearly any reason. According to Justice Stevens, the government of New London's "determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvination is entitled to our deference". In other words, whatever the city wants, the city gets. There is no standard by which to determine if a city justly has determined that economic rejuvination is necessary. They just have to find that it is, and the Supreme Court will defer to that determination.
It didn't take long for municipalities to get the message - it was open season on private property. The decision came down on June 23, 2005. John Revelli's family had owned and operated Revelli Tires in Oakland for 56 years. No more. On July 1, the city of Oakland evicted both John Revelli and a neighboring business owner so that apartments could be built on their properties. For the full story, refer to this article in the San Francisco Chronicle. This was not the first, and certainly won't be the last, instance of this kind of gambit.
Rarely is a decision by the Supreme Court as wrong as this - so wrong that both the Left and the Right are up in arms over it. For those that are concerned about the direction that John Roberts will take the Court, this should be some consolation. If Roberts turns out to be the conservative Justice that he is expected to be, he would have come down on the right side of this decision. It should be noted that it was the Court's most liberal members that have ripped the foundations of our homes and businesses out from under us. I pray for the speedy retirements of these five justices, and their replacements by Justices that understand their role, and the laws and principles that they are sworn to uphold.

Here's to Bush's Health

I was floored today, when I read of legislation that has just made it out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Apparently, John Shadegg (R) of Arizona has introduced legislation that would allow consumer to purchase insurance from any one of the 50 states. This, by no means, ensures that the legislation will become law, but it is a step in the right direction. As it currently stands, each state passes its own legislation that regulates the insurance carriers in that state, which leads to a wide array of pricing structures throughout the country. As the Wall Street Journal points out, this is precisely the sort of thing that the Commerce Clause was written to address. These regulations have the same effect as tariffs, making it impossible for companies that do business from one state to do business in another state. Allowing consumers the flexibility of choosing policies from any state they wish will allow them to pick plans that best suit their needs. President Bush has apparently endorsed the Shadegg proposal, which could result in the best health care legislation we have seen in some time.