Stevens Fails Morality Test in Kelo
v The City of New London,
Supreme Court Won't Revisit Eminent Domain Case
August 22, 2005
WASHINGTON - The
Supreme Court, given a chance to
revisit a heavily criticized ruling, refused Monday to reconsider its decision
giving local governments more power to seize people's homes for economic
John Paul Stevens defended his majority opinion last week in a
speech in craps capital of the free world, Las Vegas. The ruling was
legally correct, he said, because the high court has "always allowed local
policy-makers wide latitude in determining how best to achieve legitimate public
goals." Stevens did not say it was morally correct nor that his
opinion violated the biblical injunction not to covet.
Justice Stevens seems to display in his heart of hearts, when he said he had
concerns about the results, that the majority was in error when it granted
to local government the power that English law and the Magna Charta have prohibited.
The court appears to have turn it back on our heritage and the
biblical injunction not to covet.
Stevens told the Clark County Bar Association, "My
own view is that the allocation of economic resources that result from the free
play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable results in the long
run than the best-intentioned plans of public officials" .
said that "the public outcry that greeted [the ruling] is some evidence
that the political process is up to the task of addressing such policy
The majority on this court showed deference to the the poor in their dispute
clearly a violation of the common law principle found in Exodus 23:3 when they
allowed the developers to take the home owner's home. Further
the majority over looked the common law principle found in Psalms 82:3 where we
find "Vindicate the Lowly and the Poor". to this commentator it
appears that they just don't teach right from wrong in law school these days.