BURIED-BODIES BREWHAHA THREATENS ACCESS-FOR-ALL TO FEDERAL
COURTS, Supreme Court justices: 'No reason' judges have to hear
'every federal claim', 10/6/18, WND.
Two U.S. Supreme Court justices have
suggested courthouse doors could be closed to people bringing complaints of
constitutional violations.
The comments from Justices Stephen
Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor in a dispute the court was hearing over a property taking in Scott Township,
Pennsylvania.
Town officials adopted an ordinance used
to require a woman, Rose Mary Knick, effectively to turn her 90 acres of
private land into public property. But officials refused her any compensation.
A federal court refused to hear her federal claim, citing a 1983 decision that held
property owners must take their claims to state courts first.
But the state courts also refused to
take Knick’s case.
The dispute arose when township
officials abruptly adopted an ordinance that requires landowners to open their
property to the public if there are claims that a historical gravesite exists
on the land, as WND reported.
Knick’s property has been in her family
for half a century, and someone claimed there was on old gravesite on the land,
despite lack of evidence.
According to Miriam Seifter at SCOTUSblog, Breyer during oral arguments wasn’t
worried about people with federal claims getting access to the courts.
“There’s no reason in history that
federal courts have to be open to every federal claim. I mean, sometimes they
are. Sometimes they’re not,” Breyer stated.
The blogger said Sotomayor “added that
the federal courthouse doors are closed to other classes of litigants,
including those with tax-related claims and those objecting to unreasonable
searches and seizures.”
The issue is the 1983 precedent, Seifter
explained: “As my argument preview described, that ruling has generated controversy.
Its phrasing suggests that takings plaintiffs simply must start in state court.
But because of the rules of preclusion, which prevent relitigation in federal
court of issues that have been litigated in state court, Williamson County’s
holding means that many takings plaintiffs have no federal forum at all (other
than possible review by the Supreme Court itself). At argument on Wednesday,
the court’s eight justices considered whether this restriction is an unfair
catch-22 warranting reversal of Williamson County or an even-handed application of the rules of federal court
jurisdiction.”
Attorney David Breemer of the Pacific
Legal Foundation argued to the justices that the taking of property occurs when
the government takes it.
That is, when the government “invades”
the property without going through condemnation procedures.
In essence, he said, the township demanded
public access without compensation.
But he suggested a resolution could be
for federal courts to hear such claims.
Breyer argued that the precedent, which
would deprive Knick of any compensation for making her land public, should be
left alone.
“Scott Township’s graveyard law forces property owners to allow
warrantless searches by government and unbridled trespassing by the
public,” Pacific Legal Foundation Breemer said of the dispute
earlier.
Knick said: “It was unbelievable that
the town would trample all over my rights this way, making it open season for
trespassing on my land. I am very hopeful that the Supreme Court will take a
stand for the Constitution, and for everybody’s property rights, by striking
down this outrageous law.”
Isolated grave sites are not uncommon in
parts of the country where there is no ban on burials on private ground. And,
indeed, sometimes burials date back to before rules and regulations were
in place. So the plains of Pennsylvania contain small burial plots
for families.
There are none evident on Knick’s
property.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody
GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment