Because every Supreme Court justice receives lifetime tenure, I have never liked the Supreme Court. This arrangement seems positively unnatural, and leaves the final word on the Constitution in the hands of very old and wrinkled jurists. Tenure rewards sand baggers as much, if not more so, than people who pull their own weight. Of course if I had tenure it would be the greatest institution in the world, beyond reproach or political considerations. But I don’t, so it sucks. And besides the tenure issue, there’s the matter of the age gap between the majority of the country and the Court.<\/p>\n
Please don’t get me wrong, I love old people. A hallmark of advanced age is the privilege to say exactly what one wants. It’s refreshing really, especially at Thanksgiving. However, the reverse side of that coin \u2013 no one has to listen to Grandpa when he’s all lubed up on Wild Turkey. We just laugh and lock him in the closet until Grandma wakes up from her midday nap.<\/p>\n
Not so with the Supreme Court, because nine Grandma and Grandpas pilot that ship, and the entire country has to listen. <\/p>\n
Recently the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the government can seize private property from private citizens to transfer to corporate interests that the local government perceives are of public interest. This isn’t the same as the government seizing a few homes obstructing an on-ramp for a new highway. It’s more like Marriott wants Motel 6 out, or a developer wants a hotel in the middle of a subdivision. I can’t see the public interest in either displacement.<\/p>\n
In a surprise move from the last state where the Constitution matters \u2013 New Hampshire – a private group has petitioned for the condemnation of a residence to make way for a hotel. The owner: Supreme Court Justice David Souter who sided with corporate interests over private property.<\/p>\n