(hehe - Well, Joe, I don't know about the "expert" part, but I'm at least hopeful about the "thorough" part)
I really didn't want to post a lengthy rebuttal on this topic, but Rick has left me no choice. Readers who prefer snippets are advised now to move on to the next post or thread, cuz this may take a while. That's funny because it wasn't that long ago I thought you were lamenting the Court's stonewalling equal pay rights.
I know the (Roberts) Court recently screwed up on some "right to work" and "equal pay" cases, but I have no idea what you're talking about here since I don't recall posting anything specifically on those issues -- so you'll need to refresh my memory on this one.how about that decision that said the government can seize your property and hand it over to a strip mall developer if it so chooses.
Actually, Rick, I've never supported using eminent domain for anything other than acquisition of property for public utilities that are fixed by topography or other natural land conditions, such as the need for a particular sewer easement to follow the slope of the land. But you asked "Was that the court standing on the Right Side of History
" and in this case, substantial precedent existed in support of Justice Stevens' opinion - so much so that it was actually the dissenters to his opinion who were practicing "judicial activism" (oh my!). On top of the legal precendents was a substantial history of real-world examples of the use of condemnation for economic development purposes, one of which was when George W. Bush as CEO of the Texas Rangers organization presided over the condemnation of hundreds of acres of healthy (but economically disadvantaged) neighborhoods that "had to be cleared" for the new Ballpark at Arlington -- but we didn't hear a peep from the Private Property Rights Advocates on that one, did we? So that particular sword is not a good weapon to use against me ... cuz it just plain won't cut.Seems more likely to me that the reason you admire the court so much at this point is simply that they're making decisions more to your liking than the other branches of government.
Rick, if you actually had read my response (and I'm beginning to realize that you probably didn't) before responding yourself, you'd realize that the issues I cited occured at many points in time, not just recently. United States v. Amistad Africans (1847); Fairchild v. Hughes (1922); Brown v. Board of Education (1954); etc. That span of history, coupled with the fact that the Court's record under Chief Justices Rehnquist and Roberts has been dismal in the area of equal rights for women, the elderly, employees, etc., should be enough to convince even you that your accusation is little more than hogswallop. Either that or you truly have no understanding whatsoever of the ethos to which I subscribe.I think eventually you'll find out that's a really slippery standard.
Well, number one, as pointed out above, that isn't MY standard at all. But in response, I think you would quickly find upon removing the third branch of government that you seem to despise so much, that the democratic whims of the majority unchecked by a countervailing force would be much too slippery for anyone's comfort (except those at the top, of course), and only slightly less totalitarian than more conventional forms of dictatorship.
Don't get me wrong. I love our representative democracy and I'm fully aware of the fact that citizens have had to use the power of referendum and legislation to right the wrongs of several Supreme Court decisions (e.g., the Dred Scott Decision via the 13th Amendment, Minor v. Happersett via the 19th Amendment, and so on). But I just can't sit and listen to people constantly belittle the role of the Courts without challenging such talk as "frivolous".
So, there's my two-cents worth, plus or minus a penny.
P.S. I think "Beauty" is what is in the eye of the Beerholder - sheesh Rick, at least get your drinking lines right!
[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (edited 12/8/2008).]