Peter_Puget Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 (edited) What a nightmare!!!!! This decision revealswhere liberals really stand when they seem to be supporting "the public" and "the community." Individual and families can have their homes seized against their will so that rich developers can put up shopping malls and office parks. Edited June 23, 2005 by Peter_Puget Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Bwahahaha! Blame The Liberals! Fun for the whole family! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Yup, just look what that little bastard Napoleon did to Paris in the 1800's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 Well you can't blame these guys: Justice O'Connor's fellow dissenters were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 If your buddy Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist doesn't step down soon, looks like Hillary will be picking the next justice. From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/08/rehnquist.legacy.ap/ Chief justice's legacy of federalism fraying States' rights stance takes a beating in recent decisions Wednesday, June 8, 2005 Posted: 1:10 PM EDT (1710 GMT) l WASHINGTON (AP) -- In what may be his last term, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's legacy of limiting the federal government's reach has been tarnished as the states' rights coalition he nurtured for more than a decade splinters on some major issues. The latest example is the Supreme Court decision that a federal marijuana ban trumps state laws legalizing the drug for the seriously ill. Rehnquist also was on the losing side this year in cases that struck down state laws on wine purchases and declared it unconstitutional for states to execute juvenile killers. "In case after case after case in recent years, the strong federalist position doesn't seem to be winning out," said Richard Garnett, a former Rehnquist clerk who teaches at Notre Dame Law School. The chief justice has been the leader of the "federalist five," the five conservatives who generally support states' rights and advocate limited federal government interference. Those five -- Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas -- have voted together to strike down federal laws intended to protect female victims of violent crime and keep guns away from schools. Their reasoning is that those issues are better dealt with at the local level. Scalia and Kennedy parted ways with the five in Monday's ruling giving federal authorities the power to punish sick people who smoke marijuana to ease pain even if they live in states with "medical marijuana" laws. Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas warned that the court was inviting Congress to pass intrusive laws. 'Fig-leaf federalism' A ruling for California in the marijuana case would have sealed the Rehnquist states' rights legacy. But that was not expected, in part because the politics of the medical marijuana issue made it tougher for the five justices to stay together. "So far he (Rehnquist) has been able to get five votes for very small, more or less symbolic restraints on Congress," said Nelson Lund, a law professor at George Mason University. "It's what I call fig-leaf federalism." Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who specializes in the Supreme Court, said, "It's not for lack of leadership. Instead, a majority of the court simply isn't as conservative yet as the chief justice." The four justices who make up the court's more liberal wing -- John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- consistently vote together in cases that test the federal government's power. They were united on Monday in another decision that Rehnquist disagreed with, a ruling siding with the federal government in a dispute over ownership of submerged lands in Glacier Bay National Park. Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas filed a partial dissent supporting Alaska. Kennedy wrote the Alaska decision. The moderate conservative also wrote the 5-4 wine decision that critics said usurped a state's right to control alcohol. And he penned the 5-4 ruling that threw out the sentences of 72 death row inmates who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. Tough court Craig Bradley, a law professor at Indiana University and former Rehnquist law clerk, said the chief justice has "an incredibly strong-minded court to deal with." O'Connor, also more moderate than the chief justice, has stranded Rehnquist in major federalism cases before. Last year, for example, she joined the four liberal justices in ruling that disabled people can use a federal law to sue states over inadequate accommodations in courthouses. Garnett said a big test may come next term, when justices consider the Bush administration's challenge to Oregon's unique law allowing physician-assisted suicide. Justices will also take up a case that asks if states can be sued for not accommodating disabled prisoners. The next term starts in October, and the court may have a leadership change before then. Rehnquist has thyroid cancer and is 80. He has been on the court 33 years, and since 1986 has been chief justice. Despite the recent losses, "the Rehnquist federalism jurisprudence is still there," said Thomas Lee, a law professor at Fordham University and former clerk to Souter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 What a nightmare!!!!! This decision revealswhere liberals really stand when they seem to be supporting "the public" and "the community." Individual and families can have their homes seized against their will so that rich developers can put up shopping malls and office parks. i agree this is totally lame. this happened to my grandparents in b'ham. they were forced out of their home for expansion of the airport. yeah i know it was for the greater good but it still sucked for them. the spent years in court to get fair market value for their property. one of the few situations when i can't support my liberal brethern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 What a nightmare!!!!! This decision revealswhere liberals really stand when they seem to be supporting "the public" and "the community." Individual and families can have their homes seized against their will so that rich developers can put up shopping malls and office parks. Opens the way for the condemnation of thousands of acres for the "Super-Slab" highway from Ft. Collins to Pueblo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitergal Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 wow. That is freak'in amazing. I'm selling my property and moving to Canada. I can't believe how F**KED up this is!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal_Con Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I agree the decision is terrible and may well signal the death of Private Property Rights for all but the wealthy and/or well connected politically. I do not believe that it is a liberal v. conservative decision however. Several of the justices were appointed by repubs. Unfortunatly, there is no appeal and it is very unlikly that a Constitutional Amendment would ever pass Congress let alone the states as they are all leeches dependant upon contributions from developers and the like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Funny, I haven't seen you bitch a single time about your beloved Republican administration and Congress continually supporting corporate power over workers and families. From the 2 minute summary I'm not sure I like this decision, but you are a hypocrite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 It is a huge generalization to say that "Liberals" support this. Do you really think these judges represent what "Liberals" think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 It is a huge generalization to say that "Liberals" support this. Do you really think these judges represent what "Liberals" think? nope, not on the whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdietsch Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 left, right, democrate or republican .... it doesn't matter ... this is major BS .... sad and very disturbing ... another fine example of government doing what it thinks is best for us vs doing what we ask them to do I'd like to hear the response from both party's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camilo Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Here's something you might find to your liking, PP. Keep doing your part to unite the country. Liberals vs. conservatives. Yay! Bush's chief political adviser, Rove said in a speech Wednesday that "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he told the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 The gov't NEVER does what we ask them to. The only time the gov't has responded to public pressure was when they were forced to (i.e. anti-slavery, civil-rights, etc) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdietsch Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 i agree this is totally lame. this happened to my grandparents in b'ham. they were forced out of their home for expansion of the airport. yeah i know it was for the greater good but it still sucked for them. the spent years in court to get fair market value for their property. one of the few situations when i can't support my liberal brethern. that blows ... my grandparents made out pretty sweet when SeaTac was expanded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mec Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 The government decided to fix the Darrington access road after receiving much input from concerned climbers. Not quite anti-slavery, but it was nice for them to do that after we asked them to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 i agree this is totally lame. this happened to my grandparents in b'ham. they were forced out of their home for expansion of the airport. yeah i know it was for the greater good but it still sucked for them. the spent years in court to get fair market value for their property. one of the few situations when i can't support my liberal brethern. that blows ... my grandparents made out pretty sweet when SeaTac was expanded Do they have a spare bedroom for Gramma Minx? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 The government decided to fix the Darrington access road after receiving much input from concerned climbers. Not quite anti-slavery, but it was nice for them to do that after we asked them to. We didn't ask for this--we paid for it. Big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mec Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 We pay for everything the goverment does, regardless of whether or not we ask for it. Anti-slavery and civil rights were paid for by us (well, I wasn't quite around in the 1860's, so I didn't pay for it, but common folk did). The government does nothing without our money... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 We pay for everything the goverment does, regardless of whether or not we ask for it. Anti-slavery and civil rights were paid for by us (well, I wasn't quite around in the 1860's, so I didn't pay for it, but common folk did). The government does nothing without our money... You are not saying that our taxes paid for riots and rebellions, are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 They paid for the cops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 that is not exactly doing what the people asked for, now is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mec Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 The people paid for the civil war, the people have paid for the constitutional amendment banning slavery, the people paid for the creation of laws providing civil liberties. The riots and rebellions convinced the government to spend our money to do this, but the riots and rebellions did not provide us with the actual slavery ban and civil rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I can't believe you are holding up anti-slavery and civil rights as instances where public pressure won over government interference. If you look at it from the white southerners' perspective these are two of the greatest examples of massive government interference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.