Patterico's Pontifications

9/20/2011

An Apology From A (Connecticut) Supreme Court Justice

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 5:45 am



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

You may or may not know of the Kelo decision. For those who don’t or those who need a refresher, here’s the short version.  The city of New London, Connecticut, wanted to basically force a number of people out of their homes in order to give their land to a private companies in a plan to build facilities for Pfizer and shopping centers and the like for the increased business the city hoped Pfizer and the other new owners would generate.

But the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And the courts have taken that to mean that the taking can’t occur at all, unless it is for a public use.  In Kelo, the United States Supreme Court found that the taking was lawful in the context of this integrated development plan, in part because the public would benefit from the increased taxes.  It was a rare moment of unity for liberals and conservatives when the decision came down, because both sides offered withering criticism of this decisions.  Conservatives were angry at the violation of property rights, while liberals for the implication that you could take someone’s house as long as you plan to give it to someone who pays more in taxes—typically a person who is richer than the other person.  And the bad irony of it all is that Pfizer never did build the facility that was the keystone for this whole development plan that cost these people their family homes.

But of course none of this would have happened if the Connecticut Supreme Court hadn’t first given New London the thumbs up.  If they had ruled that the state version of the takings clause prohibited this action, it would have been impossible for the Supreme Court to rule as it had: there wouldn’t have been federal jurisdiction over the matter.  And now via Reason we learn that the Hartford Courant is telling how at least one justice who sat on the Connecticut Supreme Court felt he had done the wrong thing:

If a state Supreme Court judge approaches a journalist at a private dinner and says something newsworthy about an important decision, is the journalist free to publish the statement?

I faced that situation at a dinner honoring the Connecticut Supreme Court at the New Haven Lawn Club on May 11, 2010. That night I had delivered the keynote address on the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous 5-4 decision in Kelo v. New London. Susette Kelo was in the audience and I used the occasion to tell her personal story, as documented in my book “Little Pink House.”

Afterward, Susette and I were talking in a small circle of people when we were approached by Justice Richard N. Palmer. Tall and imposing, he is one of the four justices who voted with the 4-3 majority against Susette and her neighbors. Facing me, he said: “Had I known all of what you just told us, I would have voted differently.”

The justice later clarifies his comments so that what it amounts to is that if he knew that New London would never put into action its grand schemes, he would have voted differently.  Which might be true, or might be the ego of a judge who never wants to admit he made the wrong call given the facts he knew at the time.  I report, you decide.  But it’s also a useful reminder of the real world effects of court decisions.  Many families lost their homes.  And it may not reverse things, but it was big of Justice Palmer to at least say this much.

Oh, and read the whole thing.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

28 Responses to “An Apology From A (Connecticut) Supreme Court Justice”

  1. While some liberals might not have liked the decision, a bunch liked it as it ratified the principle that government can do what it wants (hint: it wasn’t the conservative justices that voted in favor of this decision).

    And big whoop that the judge might have ruled differently if he knew the plans would never be fully put into effect. Which judge wouldn’t have ruled that way? Would the case even have made it through the system? The city would never have moved to condemn the houses on the grounds that someday someone might want to do something else with the property.

    The fact remains is that he ruled the way he did, and there is nothing to indicate that he would do differently the next time a similar case comes along.

    He gets no points.

    steve (254463)

  2. Had I known the Killer would kill again, I never would have let the Killer out of jail.”

    This passes for a State-Level SC Judge?

    Bob Turner (8d652e)

  3. What a tragedy Kelo was.

    The personal apology was a graceful thing to do. It shows a degree of class and intellectual honesty that most judges would not have done and may help the justice sleep better at night. What it does not do is right the injustice done to Susette Kelo and her neighbors who lost their homes for no good reason from that case. More important his words do not begin to address the injustice done to others across America who have subsequently lost their properties though government force –because local governments were emboldened by the Kelo ruling – and also because many citizens did not even attempt to fight later “takings” with Kelo on the books.

    elissa (cb869f)

  4. This is much like that appeals court that ignored Ricci, and similar sentiments will arise, when the fruits of the detainee decisions, bring us someone who pulls off an attack in this country.

    ian cormac (ed5f69)

  5. This quote makes everything else the Justice says total dicta-

    “I think that our court ultimately made the right decision insofar as it followed governing U.S. Supreme Court precedent.”

    I’m sorry,Mrs. Kelo, but I was right.Further, the Justice says this as if this was a unanimous decision rather than a close one. Even after his logic is destroyed by facts, he is sticking with his story. As per Kelo,the government can run roughshod over property rights. And if the state ultimately get stood up by developers and a bad economy, you might get a meaningless apology from a judge.

    Bugg (9e308e)

  6. Kelo allows developers to make money at the expense of property owners and have enough left over to pay the various local officials who did the condemning.
    Forensic audits of all government officials, down to dogcatcher, forever.

    Richard Aubrey (cafc94)

  7. I’d have spat in the judges face.
    He only thinks he made a mistake because the developer didn’t build the complex. The fascist SOB stills thinks it’s ok for the government to steal people’s property to give to someone else if they promise to do something with it that will put more money in the government’s hands.
    btw, Ms. Kelo’s property is now being used as a dump.

    SteveP (81fa3b)

  8. Mr. Worthing,

    You wrote: “The justice later clarifies his comments so that what it amounts to is that if he knew that New London would never put into action its grand schemes, he would have voted differently.”

    I am absolutely incensed that a jurist would try to explain away his vote through moral relativism. Suddenly the governments “right” to forcibly take private property relates to whether or not the outcome is realized, not to whether the proposal is valid and applicable on its face.

    This strikes me as so much as acquitting a murderer because he didn’t kill the man he was aiming at, but rather some innocent bystander instead.

    I wrote to you earlier this year (re: the political decisions on Obamacare that Democrat appointed jurists support, Republican jurists oppose) that if legal decisions become the realm of politics instead of the application of law, then we are doomed, and this “confession” seems to be a realization of that outcome.

    Would someone please explain to me just WHY, at this point, anyone should even bother obey the law rather than figure out a way to avoid it?

    We have become the largest bananna republic on the globe.

    T (400783)

  9. I’ve come to the view that Lincoln opted to oppose secession owing to the impracticability of two nations, one slave, one free abutting each other, with continued war in the West akin to Kansas’ statehood.

    What good is the NE to us? Maybe Canada will have them if we reduce their population.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  10. I wonder what those justices reactions would be if their abodes were seized (and they were displaced) similarly?

    Again, and again, and again.

    jim2 (6482d8)

  11. I still don’t understand why the gov’t doesn’t use it’s “powers” to bulldoze the entire eastern half of Washington, D.C., for example, and offer the former ghetto-land to private developers who will put in nice condos and another Whole Foods. Seems like this would be justified under liberals’ interpretation of Kelo.

    Kyle Ur (313eb5)

  12. Kelo is an apt example of Progressivism at work:
    A viable neighborhood, water-front, community turned into a trash-dump on the “if come”, that didn’t.
    Lynchings Tar & Featherings are in order.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (3c2b69)

  13. “Had I known all of what you just told us, I would have voted differently.”

    “The justice later clarifies his comments so that what it amounts to is that if he knew that New London would never put into action its grand schemes, he would have voted differently.”

    Wow. Just…wow.

    Is that grounds for disbarment? This is an overt admission that he rendered a legal judgment based on forecasts about the success or failure of a certain policy (or “scheme,” as you described it). How is the ultimate success/failure of the New London development plan relevant–in any way–to the legal question(s) before the court???

    RB (678718)

  14. The case reminds me of the story in the Book of Kings where King Ahab took a liking to Naboth’s vineyard, but he declined to sell. So Ahab had Naboth arrested on trumped up charges, convicted and executed, and then seized his property. G-d later exacted his own form of justice on Ahab.
    A pox on the judge…

    sam (2b3efb)

  15. Too little, too late.

    More than Susette Kelo have lost their property since the courts ruled against her. This is one of the worst rulings in my lifetime when it comes to abusing the rights and freedoms of citizens of this nations. A future USSC must find another case on point and overturn this abomination.

    in_awe (44fed5)

  16. Yes, that is what should happen, but it can take generations for the planets to all align properly.
    For illustration, look how long it’s taken to take major chinks out of Miller to restore some semblance of individual rights to the 2nd Amendment.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (3c2b69)

  17. I still don’t understand why the gov’t doesn’t use it’s “powers” to bulldoze the entire eastern half of Washington, D.C., for example, and offer the former ghetto-land to private developers who will put in nice condos and another Whole Foods. Seems like this would be justified under liberals’ interpretation of Kelo

    This is similar to what many governments did in the 1960s. They called it “urban renewal”; Milton Friedman correctly called it “negro removal”.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  18. So Ahab had Naboth arrested on trumped up charges, convicted and executed, and then seized his property.

    Actually Jezebel did that; Ahab knew nothing about it until after it had been done. His crime was in failing to investigate and punish those responsible (including his queen).

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  19. When will the left apologize for slandering Todd Palin as a racist?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  20. How is the ultimate success/failure of the New London development plan relevant–in any way–to the legal question(s) before the court???

    Comment by RB — 9/20/2011 @ 9:37 am

    Well, the public use of the seizure was entirely that the government would get more tax revenue, so the ultimate failure to do so is relevant.

    But it does show yet another reason this concept of public use is terrible. One can just predict any outcome would raise tax revenue, even if it’s a lie.

    Here’s a developer who couldn’t make their plans work without forcing people out of their homes. They wouldn’t pay enough to get that properly, or find land that was for sale. No surprise their other plans also failed.

    This all gets beyond what was truly wrong with Kelo, of course.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  21. Nancy ”Jezebel” Pelosi-We need to pass Kelo before we can see whats in it.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  22. Property rights are just another artificial construct like national borders.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  23. No, they’re not. Each person’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property is one of the inalienable rights with which all men are endowed by their Creator, and for the protection of which governments are instituted among men. Borders, of necessity, come after governments; they don’t reflect any principle of justice, but merely where the troops stopped in the last war.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  24. Right, there’s a reason we put eminent domain in there, you have to be mighty venal and stupid, not to figure that out.

    ian cormac (ed5f69)

  25. What is with leftys and gun buybacks?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  26. When will the left apologize for being suicidal pro-palestinian arseholes?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  27. When will the Left apologize?
    Never!
    Being a Leftist means never having to say you’re sorry.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (3c2b69)

  28. Courts do law, not Justice. Justice is a sublime, transcendant thing – the only time it appears in court is by pure happenstance.

    “Search for justice and what do you find?
    You find “Just Us” on the unemployment line, you find “Just Us” sweating from dawn to dusk,
    There’s no “Justice”, Just “Us”.”

    Californio (fad095)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0803 secs.