This writing was originally submitted as a response to a homework assignment:
The Supreme Court, in the case of Kelo v. The City of New London (Top 25 cases, #12 in Unit 5), ruled in June 2005 that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed. The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply was dwindling.
Discuss the relevancy of this case to the charge of the adverse impact caused by activist judges on the American political system. In preparing your post, you might want to read the dissent opinion by former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As part of your response, you may address the aftermath (city council elections/Pfizer abandons site/etc…); but remember what the primary question is for this week's Forum discussion question:
"Discuss the relevancy of this case to the charge of the adverse impact caused by activist judges on the American political system."
Remember to cite sources used and reply to at least two of your classmates' posts.
There can be a benefit to turning assignments in late–I have greater opportunity to build my work upon that of others (which is one of the elements of education–learning from and standing upon the shoulders of those who came before). I am also able to draw upon more information and sources that have come to pass, thus giving me the ability to form a better opinion–the true point of education and forward thinking–part of the point of the Constitution as well!–to be a continuing living thing which changes and adjusts to reflect the times and knowledge gained from our past, present, and future history.
This hunger or desire to learn and think also leads to activism–if defined as looking into and pursuing the interests of a "good", which may or may not be seen as a "common good" among varying parties. Activists–political, judicial and any other -al that can thought, created or named–will tend to lean "left", "right" or possibly somewhere in the middle. So, really, who then is an activist if we all have the ability to view any given person at any time as an atcivist? I suppose this is why at times news agencies try to clarify by saying "activists for the cause"; whatever the cause may be at the time. 'Tis hard to keep them straight without a scorecard–harder still, even then.
In the case of Kelo v. New London, I cannot clearly define any activist among the lot. Maybe if we introduce the pro- prefix to activist we can better define and label those involved…
New London sought out being proactive in the community's assumed times of economic hardship. New London looked toward acquiring land in order to hand it over to Pfizer for the creation of more jobs in the area…
[…Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Let's hear it for Jobs! (…in the morning!)]
The idea is good. Take advantage of eminent domain in order to give the local economy it's own "little blue pill" which should, in theory, be in the better interests of the local public–and possibly even the greater public, I mean we're talking about a huge drug company! The sad part is in order to do so we begin to challenge numerous rights of property.
In the materials for this week we are told that traditionally upholding the rights of the state is more conservative in thinking; that "judical restraint" and giving more literal interpretation to the laws is opposite to being a "judicial activist". Challenging the state, giving new interpretation to the law, and giving more liberty to the individual would then be "activist" (but, at the same time, looking out for the many rather than the few is also seen as a liberal thought–I'm confused!). Here, in this case, the waters are muddied.
The Supreme Court sided with the state's decision. The Court ruled that the greater interest of the public outweighed that of the individual. The benefit to the public through eminent domain benefitted the private entity.
…we have conflicting ideas here. Who is the activist again?
To see the activist in this case, we should turn to the additional materials supplied for this week, and not rely upon the loose defintions given in the regular reading. Former Justice O'Conner in this–and many other–case(s) is the activist–and in some ways, the anarchist. In her dissent, O'Conner shared her views in that the Court had paved the way for the governing bodies to lay claim to any land and reshape it however deemed fit. O'Conner stated that she would rather rebell against what the majority had said, and give the rights of the land back to those who had held onto it for so many years. O'Conner–the conservative activist.
So, the question arises as to whether having a judicial activist has some adverse impact on the judicial system. The answer? Yes.
I now pose the question as to whether these "adverse" affects are negative. In my opinion, no. Having a Justice challenging their peers is a necessary "evil" in playing "devil's advocate"–in keeping the scales balanced; and in many cases, O'Conner did just that. Granted, in some of the cases that appeared before her, such as Lawrence v. Texas–a case concerning sexual acts among homosexuals–O'Conner was capable of sticking with conservative views and being liberal with the law.
In Lawrence, O'Conner agreed that having laws in place that prohibited homosexual sodomy was unconstitutional; yet O'Conner refrained from siding that these acts are a natural right. Essentially, O'Conner stated that under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment outlawing sodomy for homosexuals was unfair as acts of sodomy are legal between heterosexuals. Though O'Conner supported the Court's ruling on that particular element and concurred with the ruling, she did not support the overruling of a related judgement, Bowers v. Hardwick, which had upheld existing laws that banned sodomy regardless of orientation.
In my example, we can see that it is possible for one to be an activist without going so far as to bring about true anarchy. We can also see how it is possible for this activist to posess some of the ideas of and act as an anarchist against their peers–be them co-workers or members of the same political party–in order to level the field.
Adverse impacts do present themselves from activists in any camp on any issue. The adverseness, however, isn't always negative.
References
Bowers v. Hardwick. 478 U.S. 186. U.S. Supreme Court. 1986. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0478_0186_ZO.html
Kelo v. New London. 545 U.S. 469. O'Conner, J. Dissent. U.S. Supreme Court. 2005. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/155085/Unit%205:%20The%20Supreme%20Court/Unit5_KeloVNewLondonDISSENT.pdf
Lawrence v. Texas. 539 U.S. 558. U.S. Supreme Court. 2003. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: http://supreme.justia.com/us/539/558/case.html
Unknown. "Unit 5: The Supreme Court." 2010. Web/PDF Document. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/155085/Unit%205:%20The%20Supreme%20Court/Unit5_TheSupremeCourt.pdf
One thought on “…and Justices for all…”