You're halfway right. Thomas voted the right way and Scalia voted to misuse eminent domain. Scalia is also one of the insane assholes who thought posting the 10 commandments in government buildings was appropriate.


Seven of the 9 members of the Supreme Court were nominated by Republicans. They are:

Stevens - Ford
O'Connor - Reagan
Scalia - Reagan
Kennedy - Reagan
Souter - GHW Bush
Thomas - GHW Bush
Rehnquist - Reagan

The other two were appointed by a Democrat.

Ginsburg - Clinton
Breyer - Clinton

Out of these judges, only 3 sided with the Constitution in both cases.
Rehnquist, Thomas, and O'Connor dissented on both cases.

The rest are all worthless human scumbags. Scalia voted the right way on medical marijuana, but the wrong way on almost everything else.

The other 5....

Souter, Kennedy, Stevens (All Republicans) Ginsburg, and Breyer (Democrats) should be taken outside and burned alive right after their homes and other property is taken, bulldozed into the ground, and given to marijuana co-ops to grow medicine.

Wierd. I've been reading this thread all along. When I clicked on "new posts", it skipped those. I must have left the Cellar window open yesterday, and all the fresh posts got stale. Oh well, in hindsight, I think my post was mildly amusing without intending it to be.

Back to the topic, I really hope the hotel goes through. That would be delicious. They have a few other hotels to build too, but someone has to be first. Might as well be Souter.

No, Scalia and Thomas both dissented on the eminent domain case.

keep in mind that "right" and "wrong" are judgements to be used strictly at thte discretion of radar.

[quote=hot_pastrami]
It really does seem that we are rapidly approaching a tipping point in the US, after which we will be completely stripped of the ever-shrinking list of freedoms we enjoy. Our supreme court has spoken, and now all Americans have the right to keep their own property unless someone with more money wants it. What a disgrace.[quote]

Replace "rapidly approaching" with "have passed". Actually, we passed it shortly after 9/11. The age of freedom is over and humanity is returning to its usual state of tyranny and despotism.

Actually right and wrong are not judgements in this case. The job of the Supreme Court is to stick to the Constitution. It's not to redefine the Constitution or ignore it. It's not to make the Constitution into what they personally want it to be, and it's not to "interpret" it. The Constitution does not require interpretation, it means exactly what it says and is not ambiguous in any way.

If someone says the interstate commerce clause applies when it's not commerce and not interstate, they are willfully violating the Constitution. If they try to twist the eminent domain clause of the 5th amendment to mean it can be used for the benefit of private individuals, they are violating the Constitution.

It's not a gray area. It's black and white, and they are on the wrong side. They are violating the limits of their powers, and the U.S. Constitution. This isn't my "opinion", it's a fact.

I am in complete agreement with radar on this one. The constitution very plainly states a lot of things, which, since the early 1970s, have either been determined to not mean what they say, or to be reinterpreted to the extent that they have no meaning whatsoever, or in some cases, new meaning not previously understood in that context.

i don't disagree with radar on these issues. i am just skeptical about people standing up and shouting about "right" and "wrong" decisions in politics - and let's face it the SC is a political animal. as much as we may hate it, it is the truth.

it always has been a political animal, at least for as long as I've been keeping track. The fanciful notion of the highest court in the land being a stronghold of strict constructionism and absolute justice fails when faced with the reality that it is manned by a group of people with lifetime appointments and no real accountability.

It's saddening to see that even those who once supported the literal interpretation of the Constitution have fallen prey to the same disease that their liberal counterparts have suffered from for so long.

They have the same law in the UK it's called "Compulsary Purchase" but it's only done for public works projects like roads.

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou...609211-01.hcsp

Usually it's a sweatheart deal as they use the taxable value of the property. If there is a sniff of a compulsary purchase people are lining up at the door. :yelgreedy

A few years ago there was a whisper of a new town to be built where my parent live and they were central downtown. The talk in the local pub for weeks was what the locals would do with the money.

For those of you who want to stay in the "Lost Liberty Hotel" as I do, you can sign a pledge to stay there if you go HERE

The town of Arnold, MO used the power of Eminent Domain to take the land owned by the local VFW to give it to Lowe's HOme improvement store. I don't know if they waited until post-New London to do it, but they did it recently.

We need a state school educated justice next... Ivy-Leaguers approach things from an academic sense and academics make crappy laws.