Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Judiciary -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (387)	6/3/2009 11:30:50 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 817

Roman Hruska Lives! The push to replace Justice Souter with someone mediocre. MAY 4, 2009 By JAMES TARANTO Remember Roman Hruska? If so, you're older than we are. Hruska, a Republican, was elected to the U.S. Senate from Nebraska in 1954 and retired in 1976. His 1999 New York Times obituary took note of his lone famous utterance: It was his defense of President Richard M. Nixon's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge G. Harrold Carswell of Tallahassee, Fla., that brought him some uncomfortable celebrity in 1970. Liberal Democrats had mounted a strong campaign against Judge Carswell, a member of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Florida, contending that he was too "mediocre" to deserve a seat on the nation's highest court. When Senator Hruska addressed the Senate in March 1970, speaking on Judge Carswell's behalf, he asked why mediocrity should be a disqualification for high office. "Even if he were mediocre," Mr. Hruska declared, "there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos." The Democrats gleefully jumped on Mr. Hruska's argument, reducing it to "What's wrong with a little mediocrity?" Last week Justice David Souter let it be known that he intends to retire this summer, giving President Obama his first Supreme Court nomination. There has been talk that Obama will look for a "liberal Scalia"--i.e., someone with unyielding principles and verbal flair. But some politicians and observers have other ideas, as the Associated Press reports: "I would like to see more people from outside the judicial monastery, somebody who has had some real-life experience, not just as a judge," said Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold hearings when Obama makes his nomination. At least Carswell was a judge! Leahy seems to want not a liberal Scalia but a liberal Joe the Plumber. The president is making similar noises, according to another AP dispatch: Obama pledged Friday to name a Supreme Court justice who combines "empathy and understanding" with an impeccable legal background to succeed liberal David Souter, whose abrupt retirement announcement set off speculation the next justice could be a woman, a Hispanic or both. . . . "I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives," said the president. So here we have Obama, the great intellectual president, pooh-poohing "abstract legal theory" and speaking reverently of "the daily realities of people's lives." Probably this is just phony populism, but in case it isn't, one Nell Scovell of the lefty glossy Vanity Fair puts forward a name: Anita Hill, a law professor at Brandeis University. Scovell damns Hill with faint praise, describing her as "reasonably young" and "smart." If Hill has made any notable contribution to the practice or study of law, Scovell doesn't mention it. As far as we are aware, Hill's only accomplishment of note is to have complained publicly about a former boss. That ex-boss, who ironically is now a Supreme Court justice himself, has described Hill as a mediocre employee. But hey, we can't have all Brandeises. There are a lot of mediocre judges and employees and Brandeis professors. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little understanding of the daily realities of their lives? To Match His Law Suit (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-obama-picks-chicago-03-may03,0,4579738,full.story) "Obama's Supreme Court Pick Expected to Have Chicago Ties"--headline, Chicago Tribune, May 3 online.wsj.com

To: TimF who wrote (387)	11/11/2009 2:56:36 AM
From: Peter Dierks	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 817

Pfizer and Kelo's Ghost Town Pfizer bugs out, long after the land grab. NOVEMBER 11, 2009. The Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London stands as one of the worst in recent years, handing local governments carte blanche to seize private property in the name of economic development. Now, four years after that decision gave Susette Kelo's land to private developers for a project including a hotel and offices intended to enhance Pfizer Inc.'s nearby corporate facility, the pharmaceutical giant has announced it will close its research and development headquarters in New London, Connecticut. The aftermath of Kelo is the latest example of the futility of using eminent domain as corporate welfare. While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other "desirable" elements. Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation. That's especially galling because the five Supreme Court Justices cited the development plan as a major factor in rationalizing their Kelo decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy called the plan "comprehensive," while Justice John Paul Stevens insisted that "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." So much for that. Kelo's silver lining has been that it transformed eminent domain from an arcane government power into a major concern of voters who suddenly wonder if their own homes are at risk. According to the Institute for Justice, which represented Susette Kelo, 43 states have since passed laws that place limits and safeguards on eminent domain, giving property owners greater security in their homes. State courts have also held local development projects to a higher standard than what prevailed against the condemned neighborhood in New London. If there is a lesson from Connecticut's misfortune, it is that economic development that relies on the strong arm of government will never be the kind to create sustainable growth. online.wsj.com