Comments on: Souter and His Front Porch

By: Bill Kauffman

Bill Kauffman — Tue, 12 May 2009 15:13:37 +0000

Thanks for the kind words, Jason. I’m afraid that if I herded my hundreds of fugitive pieces into a single clearinghouse they’d spend all their time grousing about the warden and plotting a prison break!

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 11 May 2009 22:51:47 +0000

Dear Bill Kauffman (if you are still watching this thread):

I’m leaving this message because I don’t know how to contact you any other way.

When will we see a Bill Kauffman web site, or clearinghouse, where all of your articles are posted and accessible? I am getting tired of trolling around all over the Net seeking out the latest of your excellent writings.

Please help!

Cheers.

By: Caleb Stegall

Caleb Stegall — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:10:18 +0000

I recall being invited to speak at a lunch meeting of bright eyed hill staffers (a group sponsored by Senators Santorum & Brownback). After my localist rant, I was asked what they could do, and I said quit your jobs and go back to your hometowns. Needless to say I haven’t been invited back.

By: Tom Hurst

Tom Hurst — Thu, 07 May 2009 01:16:19 +0000

Regarding the Kelo decision, Souter was all over it. Further, though is is often casually portrayed as an individual versus a company, it has deep roots and was in fact a truly fundamental ruling that defines a people, for we either have property rights, or we do not. As much as liberty in general, the right to own, control and use property is also about whether one is free or controlled, a man or a robot, a master or a slave. And the essence of Kelo is whether one has the right to choose to give up their property, or to have it taken away from them by others. Those taking one’s property here would be either the government, in which case it is coercion and hence tyrannical, or society, in which case it is theft enforced by a “tyranny of the majority” (which our Founders abhorred). Souter sided with the tyrants and thieves on this very fundamental issue. For this, he is evil, and I say, good riddance!

By: Bill Kauffman

Bill Kauffman — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:17:16 +0000

Russell–At the top of the list are two of the noblest figures in modern American politics: the late Barber B. Conable, my old congressman, and Senator George McGovern, who lives in his hometown of Mitchell, South Dakota.

By: D.W. Sabin

D.W. Sabin — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:43:53 +0000

As I understand it, the Connecticut Courts decided in favor of New London in the Kelo case before it went to the Federal Level. They agreed that the City was best served by taking private property for a private development and much of it no doubt revolved around power politics and the less than well-maintained character of some of the disputed properties. This development…..while potentially of benefit in opening a new chapter in this moribund but pretty little former whaling city, was a private endeavor and one wonders exactly how much we as a nation want to side with big money and their big plans against the single property owner even if we see a possibility of a greater good for the larger community. This was not a highway or a sewer system or a dock or a train track or any of a hundred other infrastructural improvements with wide benefit to the entire populace…it was a private development and while it may provide jobs and property value increases over time …this is not guaranteed. Of particular note is the Rattner case in Brooklyn…the large metrotech development expansion into the Atlantic yards for a basketball arena and housing redevelopment set in motion under similar arguments and now, after people have suffered from hardball tactics, the project is up in the air because of the financial atmosphere. Sweat equity just don’t cut it @ Gracie Mansion and in Albany..nor, it would seem, Hartford.

Not to mention, the creepy record of an awful lot of redevelopment in this country….. whiz-bang retail and Cruise line gimcrackery and luxury ghettos tying up waterfront and in general a kind of near-miss architecture that is not near as charming or authentic as naturally evolving development. Souter must have his reasons but being a man in love with a less than stellar maintained antique farmhouse, one wonders at his decision in this case. I thank him for his service and wish him well in fleeing Washington, a place never intended for anything but minimal and part-time presence on the part of our political class.

Not to mention….there is no small bit of glee in seeing a Federal judicial appointment not follow the script of those who appointed them…it is such an unusual event .

By: Russell Arben Fox

Russell Arben Fox — Tue, 05 May 2009 15:59:00 +0000

And yeah, Kate, I do have that list going…

You make me curious, Bill. Who is on it?

By: Bill Kauffman

Bill Kauffman — Tue, 05 May 2009 10:53:17 +0000

Like Kate, I applaud Souter’s choice if not his jurisprudence. He was sharply criticized for his rootedness upon his appointment to the Court in 1990. Professor Roy L. Brooks, then of the University of Minnesota Law School, wrote in the New York Times, “Judge Souter’s personal–not his professional–resume raises troublesome questions. We do not see in his past a body of experience with people other than white middle-class males. He resides in a tiny New Hampshire town (population about 2,000), lives in the same small farmhouse in which he was born, has never married and apparently has almost no social life.”
Supreme Court seats, it seems, are reserved for deracinated careerists who spend their lives with other deracinated careerists. And yeah, Kate, I do have that list going…

By: Katherine Dalton

Katherine Dalton — Mon, 04 May 2009 22:35:17 +0000

I too am not a great Souter fan, but I am willing to cheer every Prodigal Son’s return home. You should keep a list, Russell, of those who have enough soul eventually leave Washington behind–no matter what their warts and failings they are in these days of iron another Society of the Cincinnati. (Come to think of it, Bill Kauffman must have the list started.)

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 04 May 2009 19:22:18 +0000

As much as we rightly value the traditions of small-town American life, and admire those with a strong sense of place, we should keep in mind that localism requires more than local people.

The sort of community praised on this website could once be found almost everywhere in America, and while the powers of this world certainly encouraged the country’s descent into consumerism and mass culture, the fact remains that most localism imploded voluntarily, as people willingly embraced the culture of the automobile and television.

Loving Weare doesn’t make Souter a conservative – it just means he’s smart enough to recognize a good thing when he sees it. To be conservative, Souter would need to understand how the current order, some of it of his construction, endangers places like Weare, and he would need to take action to ensure that such places do not continue to disappear.

By: Albert

Albert — Mon, 04 May 2009 18:32:05 +0000

I would oppose “Bill of Rights incorporation,” but it also seems morally wrong that Connecticut (or any state) has the authority to remove a family from their home, even for the “common good,” since the family is not committing an injustice by being on their property.

It would be, it seems to me, akin to an act of charity to give up one’s property for the common good, and so the State could not legitimately compel the family as a matter of justice. The community, then, ought to persuade the family to willingly and cheerfully move, or be content with the status quo if they refuse, rather than force the family out.

Anyway, those are the lines along which my thoughts proceed.

By: Casey Khan

Casey Khan — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:15:56 +0000

“Yeah, I’ve got to admit Souter’s vote in that case is a bit of a puzzler. I’d have to got back and read the decision through again–I haven’t taught it in a while; a snowstorm killed the day of class this semester when we were going to talk about “takings” as a constitutional issue–to see what Souter’s thinking was.”

Actually there’s a front-porch argument in concurrence with Souter’s judgment on Kelo (rightly decided wrongly reasoned), and that is letting Connecticut decide the issue, not the centralizing power of the Supreme Court and the 14th Amendment. It is through the unenumerated incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment, which has used the Bill of Rights to quash efforts by local communities to pursue the good and avoid the evil, namely Griswold (contraception), Roe & Casey (abortion), and Lawrence (sodomy). These are all fruits of the Lochner court which sought to protect the freedom of contract, a property right.

What is the view of front-porchers? For or against Bill of Rights incorporation? It seems that incorporation has the bane of a front-porcher’s existence for almost a hundred years now.

For more on this see Healy, Against Libertarian Centralism: http://www.lewrockwell.com/healy/healy4.html

See also Kinsella, A Libertarian Defense of ‘Kelo’ and Limited Federal Power: http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella17.html

By: Russell Arben Fox

Russell Arben Fox — Mon, 04 May 2009 16:26:48 +0000

Yeah, I’ve got to admit Souter’s vote in that case is a bit of a puzzler. I’d have to got back and read the decision through again–I haven’t taught it in a while; a snowstorm killed the day of class this semester when we were going to talk about “takings” as a constitutional issue–to see what Souter’s thinking was. It may be that, kind of in line with his character in general, he felt that is was broadly supported by matters of precedent, which he appears to deeply respect.

By: Josh Cooney

Josh Cooney — Mon, 04 May 2009 16:19:48 +0000

I was with you up to the part where Souter voted against property rights, which, for those on the porch, is a more important subject than abortion rights (from a legal, though not necessarily a moral, perspective) and same-sex marriage. At least it is for me.

Professor Fox probably knows more about the Kelo decision than I do, but it sure looks ugly at first glance. It also seems like a strange decision for someone who enjoys an old fashioned New England lifestyle and his own private property.

Let’s hope Obama picks someone who defends property rights.