Text 13740, 51 rader
Skriven 2005-06-26 07:44:00 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
     Kommentar till en text av Alan Hess
Ärende: Throwing out the 5th Amen
=================================
AH>JH> Well, folks, the United States Supreme Court has finally thrown 
AH>JH> off all pretence of following the rule of law as put down in the 
AH>JH> US Constitution, by gutting the 5th Amendment right against take 
AH>JH> someone's property without due compensation.

AH>Unless the Justices who voted in the majority thought for some reason
AH>that such taking of property was an issue for the states to handle, I
AH>don't understand this decision at all.  

AH>JH> I've said for a long time that sooner or later we would have a 
AH>JH> second revolution in this country, but I never expected that it 
AH>JH> could happen in my lifetime.  I have not seen anything that has 
AH>JH> stirred up the ire of the American public in so short a time as 
AH>JH> this ruling.  The USSC has touched off a 10.0 earthquake, and the
AH>JH> tsunami that it creates is going to destroy everything in its
AH>JH> path.

AH>Can't state legislatures still pass laws to govern eminent domain,
AH>even after this ruling?  It's the only way to protect from
AH>unreasonable property taking now that the Supremes have done this.  I
AH>don't know - it sure looks like the Constitution spelled this issue
AH>out pretty clearly.

Yes, that is the idea though.  The states can write laws in such a way 
that it makes it easier to seize property for "public good".  The 
concern is that in the liberal "feel good" socialist leanings parts of 
the country, this may become more rampant than the rest of the country.  
If I lived in California, Massachusettes or similar, I'd be concerned 
and consider moving.


AH>It may we be time for term limits for Supreme Court Justices.  Not
AH>short ones, but maybe 25 years.  With people living longer, Justices
AH>are serving far longer terms than they did when the concept of
AH>serving for a liftime was conceived.

Well the majority of the justices on this ruling were part of the 
liberal caste of the court.  I am fine with getting rid of a couple of 
them.  Ruth, John Paul and Stephen come to mind.  All were on the 
majority side of this ruling.  

It will be nice when Bush appoints Scalia as the new Chief Justice.  Of 
course Clarence would be just as good.  It would be fun to watch the 
hand waiving by the liberals over this.  Uncle Tom would sink to new 
lows.


Jeff

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
 * Origin:  (1:226/600)