Newest Supreme Court ruling

I don't think the Supreme court is very conservative Amigo.
Clearance Thomas and William Rhenquist are about the only ones there as far as I'm concerned.
They certainly don't vote like a bunch of conservatives lately.

I'm against the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security.
Thats all we need to do is have more government, the government we already had
doesn't function very efficently.
Alot of good it does to have airport security, patriot act while our borders are wide
open to terrorists from all sides of the border.
We can search American Grannies but we can't check people because of their race,
Yep, race I said, anyone from the middle east is somewhat suspicious in my view
since they are the ones who attacked us.

 

the legal system has been like this for years, and it does work.

The medicinal marijuana argument is because a federal law prohibits the use and sale of marijuana, federal law trumps state law in that regard, but the managing of a state and its individual law is a totally different subject. There is no federal law allowing the taking of private property to allow for a more progressive business community... therefore it is up to the state to allow or not allow these takings.

 

Supremem Court is majority conservative... 5 to 4 actually, that is why there was a huge stink over GWB naming a new justice (they have life tenure) which would keep the current 5/4 (Rhenquist retiring)... if Kerry had won the election, liberals would be able to flip the majority.

 

Little late to get your panties in a wad IMHO. When the Nissan (sp) corp wanted to put a plant in up around Jackson, Ms / Clinton area, they wanted land that had been owned by a black family for generations. They had several family homes currently occupied, generations of family members, and (I think) and old family graveyard there. The family was adamant. WE DO NOT WANT TO SELL AT ANY PRICE.....But look at the new high paying job opportunities ---yada yada yada-----Guess who won???????

 

You need to read some articles I found because I heard other attotney's and liberals saying the same thing....that this is not a ruling on this.....that this is a ruling for state's rights.

It most certainly is not a ruling for state's rights. If it was why wasn't Scalia part of the majority? He's the biggest advocate on the court for state's rights? The state court made their rulings based on the Connecticut State Constitution and the Supreme Court affirmed their decision based on the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution. They rewrote the phrase of takings for "Public Use" to "Private Use" for the "Public Good in the 5th Amendment"

If you think this was a ruling for state's rights then you need to go back to law school or stop listening to liberal professors.

 

Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia are the only conservatives. O'Conner swings with the wind and Souter who was appointed by Bush I has turned out to be a thorn in the side of the conservatives and anyone who thinks law trumps precendent. Like Thomas said on the dissent for the 10 Commandments ruling.....just because their is precendent doesn't mean it's correct. Precendent is made for changing and precendent is what judges rule off of when they have no legal basis for their rewriting of the laws. The Constitution and Bill of Rights is not there to tell us our rights. It is there for one purpose.....to limit the powers of government. That is what the Supreme Court and liberals in general are for..........expanding governments powers over private citizens.


This dude on here who thinks he's an attorney........you think the 10 Commandments ruling was backed by law? That was the most incoherent piece of garbage ruling I've ever seen.

 

You'll have to be a little more specific than that around these parts. I think a few of us assume that title from time to time. :hihi:

 

That's pretty funny...........

OK, the second week, or year law school guy.......:hihi:

 

the developers spend alot developing the land and therefore are allowed to reap the benefits... the poor family are given a fair market value which is better then a flat fee which the governement could say was ok. I really don't see a huge problem with this.