Shocking New Developments In Supreme Court vs. Homeowners Case

Oh please. The author is claiming all this mean, nasty and purely imaginary harrassment 'slipped under the radar' of Connecticut's Superior Court, Connecticut's Supreme Court, *and* the U.S. Supreme Court? Well, if you believe that, I have some beachfront property in Iowa I'd like to sell you.

What's most ironic about this case is, the exact same people who screamed loudest at the SCOTUS ruling in the Texas sodomy case are now claiming the Court should have legislated from the bench, and fabricated a definition (or at least a limitation) on what constitutes public use or public benefit. Truly remarkable.

Our courts have always deferred to state legislatures to define these terms, AS THEY SHOULD. Nothing in this SCOTUS ruling precludes Connecticut or any other state from changing their eminent domain laws. These definitions should be made by elected officials, not unelected, unaccountable federal

Complete Nonsense.

This is the outcome that the Right Wing wanted most. This decision throws the door wide open for graft & corruption at all levels of government.

[snip] [snip]

And I suspect they should. I also tend to believe that it should be done at the state level because eminent domain in NYC is probably a vastly more complicated issue than in

: > [Never forget: This horrendous decision was the handiwork of the : > LIBERAL-STATIST axis on the Supreme Court!]

: Complete Nonsense.

: This is the outcome that the Right Wing wanted most. This decision throws : the door wide open for graft & corruption at all levels of government.

Can you then explain why the conservatives find the decision to be one of the worst decisions made by the cout while the looney tune brain dead loser lib dems love and defend it??

[snip]

Ya better start quotin' folks because I've heard folks from both sides of the aisle hatin' this one.

The far left (and I mean self-described Marxists) considers this decision as horrible. A couple of lawyer types try to explain the legal reasoning, but none really argue for the decision. Most denounce it.

A poll was cited that says 98+% of Americans consider the decision horrible. That is so high it includes all political divisions.

Let's not make this a conservative vs liberal issue. It isn't. If anything, it is a technocrat vs common sense issue. The Supreme Court made a technocrat decision - theoretically right under law and precedence, but wrong, wrong, wrong - that defies the common sense of the American people, left or right.

First, I see no evidence that the Liberals like it. The Righties claim that they do; but I have seen no liberal group speak out for it. I'm a liberal, and I consider the ruling very oppressive. Any nation that doesn't respect private property is sowing the seeds of destruction and revolution.

I have seen very few conservatives say they hate it; but several who say it's a good thing.

It assumes that government can legally promote revenue growth by giving private property to the private sector.

I would think that the old property owners would burn down the new devwlopmwnt early & often.

Hear hear. In the US, everything has become a conservative vs liberal issue, including which way you unroll your toilet paper.

Oh, please. We all know for sure that you, James... (what did you say your name was?) are the cause of all this.

Show me just ONE liberal who is defending this decision? Just one.

You can't, of course, but the pathetic attempt by a crazed conservative kook like you would be most entertaining.

In the meantime, here's what Ralph Nader has to say about it:

'The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v City of New London mocks common sense, tarnishes constitutional law and is an affront to fundamental fairness.'

I doubt many would consider Mr. Nader a 'conservative,' and trying to turn this into a Liberal/Conservative debate is utterly idiotic. Let's take a look at who ruled in favor of this decision, and who appointed them to the Supreme Court:

Stevens (Ford), Kennedy (Reagan), Souter (Bush I), Breyer (Clinton) and Ginsburg (Clinton).

The majority of the justices ruling in favor of this decition were nominated by REPUBLICANS. This renders your attempt to characterize this decision as Liberal vs. Conservative moot and meaningless. That is, unless you're going to argue that Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr., were secretly Liberals at heart. Based on the idiocies you two have posted so far, it wouldn't surprise me.

Show me just ONE liberal who is defending this decision? Just one.

You can't, of course, but the pathetic attempt by a crazed conservative kook like you would be most entertaining.(snip)

Here's Five: Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy, Breyer, and Stevens. They're liberal enough for the cornholers, carpet munchers, baby killers, and Christianity haters, they're liberals, count on it.-Jitney