Posted on 06/28/2005 11:04:00 AM PDT by ovrtaxt
Carolyn
The courts will lean left during these land grabs. That's the factor that bugs me. On the other hand, every time the courts lean left, there's an opportunity for us to expose the courts.
Rush spent a good amount of time on this motel venture. It got his interest. Now, when someone wants to 'eminent domain' Rush's estate, the courts will be more than happy to oblige. But if someone wants to grab up a Pelosi estate, the courts will defend her. That's what I think will happen. So, we need to be ready to call the courts on it when they favor the left.
There's no sense of true justice on the courts. The only way to fix them is to help the public see them for what they are.
"If I have been reading the reports correctly, I think the decision is a deferral to a legislative determination of what is in the "public interest", rather than what some jurist thinks is the public interest."
What does the Constitution say about property rights?
My little sister was working in the Bush Whitehouse at the time Souter was nominated so I know a little about how this took place. She was Administrative Assistant to Boyden Grey who was President Bush's (41) Personal Legal Council. Amount other things, Boyden Grey's office was charged with developing the vetting criteria that was used by the Administration to pick Supreme Court nominees. There was a big push to avoid another Bork. Bush (41) had little stomach for a fight and was more of a New England liberal Republican then a conservative anyway.
Consequently, one of the main vetting criteria was that the nominee have written few controversial opinions that revealed his judicial temperament and political leanings. The idea was to give the Democrats little to sink their teeth into. The problem with this approach, which has been borne out by history, is that the President who nominated Souter had no idea what he stood for. They perhaps hoped he was a conservative.
No property will be taken without just compensation and only for a public use, but I suspect you knew that. My point was that the elected officials made a legislative determination of what a public use was, and the supremes deferred to the legislative determination. That is the antithesis of judicial activism. If you want to bust someone's shoes, it should be the City council, not the supremes
Is it more obviously unconstitutional than denial of speedy trial rights to all persons under US custody?
I clearly stated that I disagree with the city law authorizing the taking. I was simply making the point that whatever the New London decision was, it was not judicial activism. To the extent you are opposed to judicial activism, your anger should be directed to the City for making the bad law, not the court for upholding it. I have seen almost no criticism of the City's actions in this matter - all anger seems to be directed at the court, which for once was refraining from substituting its judgment for that of the duly elected representatives of the people.
me too! we need to make sure that the City of Weare has a good tax base. its obvious that Souter would approve of this use, has anyone just asked him if we could just have his property?
It's nice to know that Mike Wallace has found a new job.
"No property will be taken without just compensation and only for a public use, but I suspect you knew that."
And what did they mean by 'public use'?
Posted by mizmoutarde to bobdsmith On News/Activism 06/27/2005 7:33:02 AM PDT · 139 of 843
It has to do with the beliefs of the MAJORITY in this country, frequently the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY being negated by a judicial body that they did not elect and which is not accountable to the people.
Well, I guess I'm not going to get an answer to my question. I suppose it is easier to rant than think. . . .
It won't take much encouragement to keep my two senators on the filibuster bandwagon for "Border control?, We don't need no stinkin' Border Control" Gonzales.
I think the point is this: Let the hotel and associated law suits take its course. Let the case go back to the Supreme court. Souter would have to recuse himself, and that just might reverse this ridiculous case-law decision. No hotel would need to be built - it's just a prop in a comedy sketch.
There's lots of architecture students who could have a design competition and generate all sorts of plans for review.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.