This from the National Review today. Our new Chief Justice Roberts sided with the 'liberals' on the court in favor of a plaintiff who's house was sold in a property tax auction. The man had moved out, but his wife (they were separated, not divorced) and daughter continued to live there and ignored the notices. Read the article for more details, but here is the key summation: And might Roberts end up again one day with Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg”â€Âif that foursome manages to get something right? I suppose. But something in that Unsuitable Quintet sets off tremors That quintet does set off tremors with me. Conservatives have been counting on the legacy of Bush's appointments to help our cause for years to come - now?
Our new 'conservative' Chief Justice
Posted May 18th, 2006 at 04:59 PM by redstatewannabe
From reading the actual case, which you can find here, it appears that the state of Arkansas really didn't do justice to the residents. Two certified letters in two years is all the notice that was provided, both of which were returned to sender as undeliverable.
In Illinois, when a private citizen landlord is evicting tenants for nonpayment of rent, there must be a sworn witness's affidavit saying that yes, the tenant has been notified. Now, shouldn't the government be held to at least that standard before taking private property?
"Now, shouldn't the government be held to at least that standard before taking private property?"
Maybe, but is that a Constitutional question, or something that should be worked out by the State of Arkansas? Maybe the action would spur a new bill in the Arkansas assembly?
The author wasn't so much arguing that this was an awful decision as he was noting that Roberts was alone in joining the libs - maybe a foreshadowing, hopefully not.
I think it's a Constitutional question under the IV and XIV amendments: Determining whether the state had engaged in sufficient due process to protect the plaintiff's property against unreasonable seizure.
Siding with private property rights against excessive government intervention doesn't seem very liberal.
"Siding with private property rights against excessive government intervention doesn't seem very liberal."
Except that he agreed with Ginsburg and Stevens.
I am not a lawyer, so I don't pretend to know all the numerous nuances this case may have hinged upon, but I have read enough of Scalia's and Thomas' opinions to know that they usually have what most would call the "conservative" position.
Wait... are we wanting justices to judge case-by-case, on those case's merits, or are we wanting them to be partisan, and to never vote with those we have classified into a particular partisanship sector?
That's how this post comes across.
I worry Matthew.
"The author wasn't so much arguing that this was an awful decision as he was noting that Roberts was alone in joining the libs - maybe a foreshadowing, hopefully not."
Just as you worry that Roberts will always join Scalia and Thomas.
Roberts is a brilliant guy and I expect him to rule based on his interpretation of the law, regardless of who that means he ends up siding with in a particular case. I'd hope he'd be praised for that, not criticized. It's already a disgrace that everyone in the Congress votes their party instead of their conscience 99% of the time...let's not complain that the Supreme Court hasn't become just another venue for partisan hackery.
Everybody loves partisan hackery, as long as they are their partisans and hacking on their side of the issue. :-)
You better watch out for John Roberts. I may be wrong, but I don't think he's going to march lockstep with Scalia as the years go by. He seems like too nice a guy to be a grouchy conservative, and he himself has a familial arrangement which may give him pause before passing judgment on that of others.
from another thread
I know you are kidding, your cutesy little smiley face tells me so, but most people HATE partisan hackery, and it's why nearly every single elected official, from local through national, is pretty much reviled by the common voter.
That, above all else, is what is wrong with American politics, and is why government is so incredibly expensive.
Politicians rank way below used car salesmen, trial lawyers, and garbagemen, and just barely above child molesters and drug dealers.
Whenever I have to shake some politician's hand, I feel so unclean I have to wash up immediately. Yuck.
This is what I think people hate about politicians:
1. When they vote for something they don't really believe is best for the country/state because of campaign contributions from the beneficiary. (I do consider it much different if the politician really does believe in the 'cause', but it is very hard to tell the difference.)
2. When they vote against their own stated principles, especially when pressured by party leaders. The medicare drug benefit and the Illinois state budget come to mind as prime examples.
Everybody loves partisan hackery, as long as they are their partisans and hacking on their side of the issue.
Yeah, I guess there is that.
Who says Roberts joined the liberals?
Maybe the liberals moved right, especially after getting beat up over Kelo, so Scalia just staked out an even more conservative opinion for the future.
Caveat emptor
"He seems like too nice a guy to be a grouchy conservative, and he himself has a familial arrangement which may give him pause before passing judgment on that of others."
Makes me wonder what you think about me. Am I too nice to be a grouchy conservative, or am I too conservative to be a nice guy?
you are too young to be grouchy
I am a happy conservative.
Some think I am a nice guy.
I do get grouchy at whippersnappers, lay-abouts, and slug-a-beds.
Laziness...the ultimate sin in America, at least until you properly retire.
The elderly are wise because they know the best gig in America.