The Left Wing Wins One

[mtelliott]

But, why was this a good ruling? Without the B.S. of conservative vs. liberal, why was this a good ruling?

I consider myself a moderate and for the life of me, I don't see how eminant domain can be used when the only benefit was to a developer, and tax revenue.

I'm ignorant when it comes to the complexity of the constitution but I don't understand how the greater good was served. I'm open minded (at least I think I am) so try and help me understand why this ruling is good.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Superman
No, the problem is bull**** statements like this. Even the most retarded dunce can see that this statement is internally inconsistent. Again, everything evil is "liberal" and everything good is "conservative?" That's not only hogwash, it's hogwash that's impossible to buy into unless you are ignorant, or not the slightest bit rational. The statement above makes it sound like there were a few sensible, responsible justices sitting up straight on the bench with a clear view of their role and responsibility......and that they were shouted down by an unruly bunch of anarchists with no respect for the Constitition of the United States of America. Nice try at serving up a wholly dishonest mischaracterization.

Well that was special! You managed to accuse my postion as being one held only by an idiot, yet somehow fail to offer any evidence that I am wrong? How is this?

What was the constitutional basis given for this decision O' wise one? Lets hear it.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Superman
The statement above makes it sound like there were a few sensible, responsible justices sitting up straight on the bench with a clear view of their role and responsibility......and that they were shouted down by an unruly bunch of anarchists with no respect for the Constitition of the United States of America.

This one was so silly it gets two quotes

The above (minus ONLY the term anarchists) is absolutely what I was saying. I'm glad I got it accross properly.

Again, what was the legal basis for allowing this? You've got nothing, absofucinglutely nothing.

And yes the constructionist justices are gods among idiots in my opinion. The difference in purpose and honor is staggering.

A good justice is one who will say "This law/action goes against every moral and/or ethical fiber of my being, yet I realize it falls squarely within the laws of our land and therefore I uphold it (or vice versa).

Just tell me how you justify this legally vs my constitutional rights and I'll shut up. I mean damn Sup, even they didn't include any law in the decision! Wake the fukc up!

[fintstone]

Originally posted by k911sc
whats that other name for a mule again? not donkey, but there's another one i think....

A mule and a donkey are quite different. Only a donkey (the Democratic symbol) is an a$$.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by k911sc
whats that other name for a mule again? not donkey, but there's another one i think....

It's jackass. And it's appropriate for mule considering the content of this thread.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If anyone's "liberal" in this country, it's these neocons in office who continually bloat our government to massive proportions and steal from the poor to give to the rich with each pathetic law they pass.

Hell, their party nominated 7 of these 9 justices. Yet, somehow, it's STILL not the "republican's fault" it's the "left's fault."

There are fools everywhere.

rolls eyes.