If our Republican leaders can’t be loyal to America, why do some people insist on spinning their treacherous behavior? If they spend all their time trying to hurt their fellow Americans rather than solve the real problems we face, why?

Republicans…

I failed to address your point that justices other than Mr. Justice Douglas have had psychic powers. I would submit that Mr. Justice Douglas was the most prescient in that he forsaw a public that was gullible enough to swallow the logic of Taney in Scott v. in regard to chattel rights vis a vis the fetus. Certainly, Holmes and others of his time ran rampant through the Bill of Rights when they created the “incorporation” concept out of the 14th Amendment and them applied it in a selective, convenient pattern.

I’m not running anywhere (this being my fifth post in this topic), I just choose not to get dragged into the usual unproductive name-calling.

As to your other point, it seems to me that there has been more than one justice who seemingly had/has psychic powers.

I will not hide behind shadowboxing my position as cloaking one’s position is intellectual bankruptcy at its worst. I am merely pointing out that Kelo does procede from a multitude of lower court decisions that have not been accepted by SCOTUS in toto, but if SCOTUS were to go againt that record, it would in no way qualify as “judicial activism” if the SCOTUS decision was firmly rooted in common law and common usage.

To adhere to your implication of “judicial activism” would be to deny the legitimacy of overturning prior findings. That would be judicial atavism at its most plain. It also denies the very foundation of law upon which our system is based.

You decided to speak with authority and go deep on this subject. I am well qualified to chit chat with you.

To return to the beginning — my point was simply that when the Conservatives are viewed as taking away freedoms (i.e., Patriot Act) everyone screams bloody murder, but when the Liberals do it, hardly a mention.

As an aside, the first test of the Kelo decision may well be at the expense of Jusitce Souter. Someone is now trying to take Souter’s home in order to build a hotel. Clearly a benefit to the public. Clearly legal now under Kelo. Nothing huge there.

A pox on the democrats AND republicans!

Our freedom can only be taken by the government or given to the government. Remember it is for our “own good” – be it fighting the islamic mafia (thanks “right wingers) or not smoking a legal, very taxed product, that results in the abrogation of our liberty. Now we all will benefit by confiscating private property (thanks “liberals”) and giving it to business.

I say once again, takings that result in property going from one private party to another private party are nothing new.

Since you didn’t seem to catch my veiled statement above, I AGREE WITH YOU. I’m inclined to think that this instance was one of local government getting out of hand with the taking.

What I’m pissed about is that people are trying to make this out to be some huge change in the law. It’s not.

hy·per·bo·le (P) (h-pûrb-l)
n. A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in “I could sleep for a year” or “This book weighs a ton”.

and where, pray tell, have I engaged in that?

…and what this has to do with moveon.org is beyond me.

again, good bad or indifferent, this is NOTHING NEW OR SURPRISING.

“The mere fact that property taken outright by eminent domain is transferred in the first instance to private beneficiaries doesn not condemn that taking as having only a private purpose. The court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public.”
-Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, US Supreme Court 1984

“‘It is not essential that the entire community, nor even any considerable portion, …directly enjoyor participate in any improvement in order [for it] to consititute a public use.’”
-the above case citing Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles, US Supreme Court 1923

“Here one of the means chosen is the use of private enterprise for redevelopment of the area. Appellants argue that this makes the project a taking from one businessman for the benefit of another businessman. But the means of executing the project are for Congress and Congress alone to determine, once the public purpose has been established.”
Berman v. Parker US Supreme Court 1954

The list goes on. And on… and on. I told you… go read some other cases and/or stop listening to people who tell you what to think.

You’ll notice that I haven’t given my opinion on the topic. I’m merely stating that those who see this as some huge significant change just flat out don’t know what they’re talking about, or they do know but are using this as political ammo by exploiting the public’s gut reactions to too little information and general lack of legal knowledge.

So you can fall back on political hyperbole and the MoveOn talking points or actually read for yourself. I wonder what you’ll choose.

I don’t care for Bush either, but please enlighten everyone here on what would change with a “real man” (um excuse me, a democrat according to you).

Like I said, it takes more than one man to change things. Again you reply on such a simple minded basis instead of looking at the entire problem.

You are too focused on getting Bush out that you really can’t see what the real problem is.

That is the problem with you kids, you only see black and white (democrat and republican and there is a whole world out there besides that). There are real issues here that need to be addressed beyond the oval office.

Bring forth a real man from the depths of the Republican party. Oh, wait, you seem to be short those.

And if you are so quick to forget, we only went to Iraq on the CIC’s orders, Congress voted to give him the authority.

The problem with Oliver is that he thinks in simple terms. One president will not change a lot, we have to change the congress, the FBI and CIA and we have to change a lot of the underlying structure to really make a difference.

Oliver thinks that the president can do it all and only if he is a democrat can he be effective against terrorism, but this is very biggoted and single minded thinking. Typical of someone like Oliver.

I guess O’Connor is as ignorant as I am when she said that in this “perverse” decision that the Court “abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power [i.e., taking private property from A and giving it to B] and that a government can now take private property and give it to private interests, contrary to the now-impotent “public use” limitation of the Constitution. Thank god O’Connor is leaving the Court. Good riddance, you say.

You are bang on Tuco Ramirez the Rat. It all comes down to name calling, not counter arguement or debate. Oliver should just take a quick look at this here comments section and see who’s bringing up points to argue, and who’s shooting off their mouth, the lefties or righties.

Of course, Genus Libratas Americana is known to be one of natures most vocal creatures, so this is very much understandable.

I think (tin foil hat time) President Rove and his trained Chimp don’t really want to end the “War on TerraTM”. They want us all to be afraid. Scared people are easier to control.
They could INCREASE funds for local law enforcement. They could INCREASE funds for alternate->conservation->greenhouse gas reducing->oil dependency decreasing technology. They could stop running IMMENSE deficts and slashing taxes for the richest “in time of war”. They could improve communications between government agencies instead of increasing secrecy. They could improve security around chemical plants and nuclear power plants. They could invest in fusion energy. They could check every container entering every major port for radioactivity.
Instead, assets got pulled out of Afghanistan to get ready for the upcoming Iraq invasion, then came creating the “motivation” creation by the same reporter who got thrown in jail for not directly revealing covert agents. (I’m not letting her off the hook entirely, she may have been in the Novak shit-chain after all). Instead, it’s legal for government agents to check ANYONE’S library records without a warrent without EVER telling the subject and without libraries being allowed to report it even happened.
I mean, WHAT THE FUCK? Do you pinheads defending “King Mayerd” (sp, pardon my French) really want to live in the country you’ve helped create?
STOP BEING SO AFRAID. Watch the Londoners reaction to the bombings. They aren’t as afraid as us-maybe because they’ve seen this sort of shit before, especially for 3 long years when they had to manage pretty much by themselves.
That’s another point-STOP PISSING OFF YOUR FRIENDS. Thank goodness some members of Congress found a bit of a spine around the Bolton nomination (he is probably involved in the Plame outing, btw). If you want to keep a worldwide threat from being a threat, you have to work worldwide!

Either somebody told you to think that, or you only read the one case an no others. If you knew the state of property law in this country, you’d know that all they did was uphold decades upon decades of precedent on the issue. To do otherwise would have been (wait for it) judicial activism.

If your opinion is that the current state of the law doesn’t comport with what you see as right or good or what have you, that’s fine… but to say that this individual opinion was anything other than in line with the law as it stands does nothing but reveal your ignorance of the law itself.