decrepit US supreme court supports broad "eminent domain"
find something more telling about the robed nazgul than their laughably selective “hands off states’ rights” doctrine — always strong when it doesn’t involve the lessening of the supreme power of the almighty, ever-righteous US government. in kelo v. new london (argued today), the robed imposters fear that there’s nothing they can do. “Justice Sandra Day O’Connor questioned whether the homeowners were asking the court to ‘second-guess’ the power of eminent domain.”
ahh, sandra o’connor. but let it be about a far more common conflict — something where the federal government wields its hammer to smack down a state government trying to weasel in on the action — and you’ll find unapologetic second-guessing in abundance (minus the part where they attempt to mold the issue as though the state in question is secondary, and the federal government primary).
“This was a depressed community and they wanted to build it up and get more jobs,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said during arguments today in Washington.To do that, the city is “taking property from someone who doesn’t want to sell it,” said Justice Antonin Scalia. “Does that count for nothing?”
scalia, friend of the working stiff. ha! great show. now if he could be relied upon to make the blathered principles of this country count for something across the board.
the states are simply the children of the federal imperial jackals, who will change stripes as befits the preservation of their power for the issue before them, pushing away or fondling their children accordingly. no principles other than that. not to worry though, because it will always be done with common phrases imbued with the meaning whatever tyrant-of-the-hour finds convenient. (e.g., “clear and present danger“.) if that gives not solace, what ever may?
February 23rd, 2005 at 12:41
“Robed nazgul” — that’s priceless and soooo right, O Salted One. I’ve long considered the supremes to be among the worst violators of liberty in fedgoondom, primarily because they’re the ones tasked with sticking to the Constitution and they too often don’t. It’s amazing to me how they continue to pick at its corpse, yet so many see halos above their heads.
February 23rd, 2005 at 18:13
thank you, sunni snake! that’s my standard description for them now, so you’ll probably see it again.
an honor to get such a comment from someone who obviously has the lowdown on the supreme court.
February 24th, 2005 at 09:09
Er, I remember that link’s contents, and I’m not going back there again … It’s been a long time since that interview, so you know what I said better than I do.
June 27th, 2005 at 12:15
O’connor wrote a very scathing dissenting opinion on this decision against property owners’ rights and the abuse of eminent domain.. I believe your own links provide the evidence that O’connor could do nothing to please you and your obviously blinded-by-your-own-bullshit eyes. Where do you stand on this issue? All I can discern from this entry is that you have some sort of personal problem with this Supreme member.
June 29th, 2005 at 03:51
All I can discern from this entry is that you have some sort of personal problem with this Supreme member.
so you’re stupid then?
take that crystal ball and use it ahead of time next time. or just go to a blog where the people are prone to buying bullshit.