Contradictions

Contradictions are not easy for me. I like things to be neat and predictable. I realize as a Buddhist that I have a long, long way to go because life is not predictable, or neat, or fair, or without contradictions. Things change all the time whether you want them to, approve them or even see them coming. I accept that as a living being. I do. But I have difficulty letting go of my expectations that there are some things in which we can expect consistency. The U. S. Supreme Court taught me today that that may not be a reasonable expectation either.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know much about the law butI have a curiosity about the workings of the U.S. Supreme Court and often follow rulings made by the court that could effect my life and the protection of individual rights in America. I understand the importance of the court as the interpreter and guardian of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ensures that all Americans, regardless of social standing or economic position, will receive equal justice under the law. I don't always agree with the court's rulings. In fact there are times when I fear for the constitution's power in guaranteeing individual rights to citizens.

The current social climate, with a clear and strong agenda proposed by a conservative minority, has taken some steps away from the individual rights interpretation of the constitution that has permeated the Court since the 1950's. In yesterdays's ruling onGeorgia v. Randolph, the Court voted on whether police could search a home when one occupant, who is present, gives consent, and the co-occupant, who is also present, does not give consent. The Court voted 5 - 3 for police needing consent of all present occupants. Good news for those of us who are proponents of individual rights.

In thinking about this ruling I couldn't help but contrast it to a ruling the Court made on June 23, 2005 on Kelo v. New London . In that 5 -4 ruling the Court voted to allow use of the power of emminent domain to force the purchase of individually owned properties for the sole purpose of building businesses that would create jobs in the economically depressed New London CT community. In the past eminent domain has applied to use of property deemed for public use only. This ruling, conceivably, allows big business to legally confiscate properties in preferred areas for the sole purpose of promoting their own profit making opportunities. And, oh yea, it will create a number of service jobs as well. Visions of smaller homes and communities being dismantled along the coasts of America by large casinos and resort operations are easy to conjure with this law.

Sometimes I don't know what these people (the justices) are thinking. In the course of 9 months they have voted that police cannot enter without all occupant's, if present, approval, BUT a company can come along and force you to sell to them at their price if they can prove it will change the economic outlook of the community. So, no one can come into your house without consent, but your house and property can be confiscated and demolished without your consent.

Buddhist or not, this does not make sense to me.