Reason #1 Why I'm Not Voting for Hillary

It is quite likely that the next person elected president will have the opportunity to nominate one or more people to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens is 86 years old, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 73, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are both 70.

The Clinton administration put two justices on the court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer. Hillary played a major role in selecting these two people for the court.

Justices Ginsburg and Breyer both voted with the majority in the Kelo vs. New London case. In this case, the supreme court ruled that a state or local government could seize private property by eminent domain, in order to give it to another private individual or company, to use for a different purpose. This was a clear misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation".

It is clear that it is constitutional for a government to seize private property for a public use, such as a road or school. It is ridiculous and asinine for government to seize private property in order to give it to another private individual or business. Any person or corporation who has political influence with the local city council or state legislature, can thus seize the property of another person.

It is clear that any person nominated to the court by Hillary will vote in favor of allowing such unconstitutional seizures to continue, if such a case is brought before him or her. Hillary favors increased government control over people's lives and over the economy, and will certainly nominate a justice who will vote to increase the power of government over private individuals.

Furthermore, it is clear that Hillary favors the use of government to enrich herself and her cronies by selling govenment favors, such as the pardons that the Clinton administration sold in exchange for campaign contributions for her run for the senate in 2000. Confirming the supreme courts ruling on the Kelo case will allow government officials to provide eminent domain seizures of property in favor of those individuals and businesses who compensate with campaign contributions or other consideration.

For a thoughtful viewpoint on the Kelo case, read Justice Clarence Thomas' dissenting opinion. Here is an excerpt:

The consequences of today’s decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called “urban renewal” programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.

Democrats are always claiming to be for the poor and the little people. In this case, I wish they would back up their words with action.