You don’t have any idea what precedents lie behind the majority decision. The majority didn’t create an “entirely new definition of public use.” In fact, they didn’t change the meaning of public use by so much as a particle.

The majority stood on a 50-year-old precedent to put the ball back in the hands of the state legislatures–exactly what conservatives argue should be done with Roe.

Thomas and Scalia took the activist route of taking power away from state legislatures and putting it in the hands of…how is it you people say it?…oh yeah, unelected lawyers!

In short, Kelo broke no new ground at all.

It’s one of those decisions where the conservatives on the court stood up for the “little guy” over the government. (Wasn’t that one of Kennedy’s biggest issues with Alito?)

Where exactly are you going with that question?

Exactly where I said I was going.

You brought up Kelo in response to an earlier comment. My question follows: What new ground do you think was broken by the Kelo decision?

Do you actually know? Or are you just flappin’?

Where exactly are you going with that question?

Had everyone who opposed Alito backed a filibuster, the nuclear option would have been triggered.
This is assuming the Republicans had the votes for it, and if they decide to go nuclear the worst they could do would be to appoint two right wingers to the Supreme Court.

For example, Kenneth Lay was a competent, but evil and amoral, CEO for Enron. Competent means the person is capable of performing the job in question, but doesn’t guarantee that the person will perform the job according to my (or in this case, the Democratic party’s, or half the country’s) wishes.

Let’s bring this closer to your apparent home: Michael Moore is a competent filmmaker, but would a right-winger put him in charge of anything? No. Not because he has no skill, but because they disagree with how he uses those skills.

Hillary Clinton is, by all accounts, a competent senator, but most wingnuts would rather bite off their own tongues than confirm her to any governmental position.

So yes, it’s the Democrats’ jobs to block a competent nominee if they believe he’ll use his skills to hurt the country. As Scalia and Thomas have tried to do and now, most likely, Alito will do.

Problem is, the left says that about any nominee whose views don’t coincide with those of Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy.

David Souter was opposed by the very same left wing groups (PFAW, NARAL) that were feeding the questions Kennedy was asking of Alito.

You want different justices appointed? Start winning some elections.

Had everyone who opposed Alito backed a filibuster, he wouldn t be a Supreme Court Justice today.

Wrong again. Had everyone who opposed Alito backed a filibuster, the nuclear option would have been triggered.

List for us the ways Scalia and Thomas have ‘hurt’ the country. Let’s see some actual examples of where people have been ‘hurt’ by their decisions.

You people need to stop talking in platitudes and start talking specifics. “He’ll be bad for the country!” “He’ll hurt America.” “He’s on the opposite side of all things we hold dear.” It’s really lame.

So let’s see some details already.

I didn t realize it was the Democrats job to block anyone s COMPETENT nominee.

“[Democrats] won’t be able to block any competent Bush nominee to the Supreme Court (should another nomination open up).”

I didn’t realize it was the Democrats job to block anyone’s nominee.