Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Past Your Eyes
Justice Thomas respectfully disagrees.

His brilliant dissent clearly explains why Peter J. Smith is dead wrong.

I'm sure that Peter Smith will dismiss Thomas' argument because he is well . . . a "conservative."

But to assume, as one must from Smith's comments, that Justice Thomas (not to mention Scalia and Rehnquist and O'Connor) do not unserstand the issues at stake is preposterous.

9 posted on 08/03/2005 2:33:11 PM PDT by Maceman (Pro Se Defendant from Hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Maceman

This man is a law professor!!?? It's ok to take the land because the owners are compensated? Compensation is a seconday issue here. First - is there a true public purpose for the taking. An increase in proprety taxes from a private development is not even close. Lastly, its funny to hear one of these libs say that the local governments habe all the answers when they usually support big - federalized government and wacky judges.


15 posted on 08/03/2005 2:38:16 PM PDT by wewereright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson