[TheOtherOne]

I know this is off the topic, but where the hell do Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands get off trying to whittle away at my rights?

[sourcery]

Ruling otherwise would "require courts to scrutinize the efficacy of a vast array of state and federal regulations - a task for which courts are not well suited," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court.

Totally false. It's quite simple, actually: No government rightfully has the power to take private property by means of any bill of attainder--which is precisely what any rent-control law is. This no more requires the Federal courts to exercise uncanny powers of judgement than does enforcing the prohibitions of the First Ammendment against criminalization of speech: it's just not allowed, period.

[The_Reader_David]

Hmm. . .states rights. . .socialism. . .states rights. . .socialism. . .

States rights are a means to an end, so I guess I'll come down on the court being wrong on this. It was an unconstitutional taking.

[PAR35]

It restricted lease prices that oil companies could charge their dealer-owned stations and barred the companies from taking over those stations.

No mention of closing the station and selling the land for a Starbucks or a McDonalds. Then we could see what happens to gasoline prices when a large percentage of the stations go away.

[k2blader]

SCOTUS strikes again.

[atomic_dog]

... the rights of property owners.

Ain't it funny how States change their tune when it comes to a property owner being able to bar gun owners with a carry license from carrying on their property?