Well excuuuuuse me. (wink)

Actually, I am aware of some of my shortcomings. I know this wil come as quite a surprise to you guys, but I do have some shortcomings. One of them is all these various shades of grey I see.

Can't vouch for the authenticity, but this is amusing!

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Ciao.

Okay, and I know you guys have been over this at least briefly, but this Supreme Court case may not even be about the details of this local eminent domain decision. I suspect it was not about that at all. I suspect that the Supreme Court chose, and will continue to choose, not to stand in the shoes of local jurisdictions in making eminent domain decisions. That, and nothing more than that, was perhaps the decision. If local residents want that local jurisdiction to make decisions like this, then so be it. If they do not, they know what to do. If this is a problem, it is not one that requires the Supreme Court to address. And the LAST thing the SC wants to get into the business of doing is second-guessing local jurisdictions' eminent domain and zoning decisions. We'd need nine hundred SC justices for that, and power would shift away from local elected representatives to national courts.

Like someone else said a couple of pages ago, why in the world are you conservatives so upset over the feds not overturning a local decision?

The contortions you go through in justifying your positions are really quite amazing.

You are prepared to blindly follow (one might even say make a snap judgement to follow) the Judicial branch because they have more information than you. Okay, fair enough. Not my preferred approach, but some people rely on blind faith to get through the day.

Yet at the same time, you reject anything that anyone in the Executive branch says, because...well...they are wrong, dammit!

Does the Executive branch also have more information than you? How much information do you need to second-guess them?

Are Supreme Court justices without agenda? Above human nature?

Riddle me this, O Defender of The Huddling Masses: If a Supreme Court justice retired, and then became a Republican senator, would you still follow him blindly?

Based on your previous responses, I'd say you would have to. Please limit your response to 500 words or fewer.

No thanks, Colin. I was hoping to find a constructive or at least thoughtful post here. Should have known better.

OH!

supe, you had better put some cream on that, else that sting will continue to burn. :Dhttp://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/burn.gif

I am not mad. I am frightened. You should be to.

And you're posts, while longer, appear to be devoid of anything except personal attack on my character.

Should I have listed footnoted documents which I referenced when I researched this? Maybe I should have posted the Congressional record on the creation of both sections and their development. And the decisions and the dissents of the cases. Maybe I should post the speeches by Ginsburg where she says we should look to legal decisions outside this country to shape our constitutional law.

Supe, you have far more faith than most religious zealots, when you believe these jurists have the people of the United States of America's best interests, in mind.

Go Zois yourself!

Island, someone once asked whether a person who used to be a SC justice, but is now an elected legislator, would be viewed differently by me in those different roles. The answer is yes.

One of the most important lessons I have learned professionally is the ability to tell the difference between my job and everyone else's. I can even tell the difference between my job at L&I and my job now. My job at L&I was to protect workers. And it so happens that even the employers seem to have developed some good respect for me, though they understood that I was serious about protecting workers. That has worked well for me, as it turns out, now that I have a different role.

Let me put it yet another way. I see a fair number of people who are confused about their roles. Consequently, they try to make everyone happy all the time. If I were considering filling an important executive position, I would eschew those candidates who seem to have lacked a clear vision in their former positions. Even when I disagreed with the thrust of the previous role of a candidate, I would seriously consider hiring that candidate if I could verify that his or her outstanding performance was related to their clarity of vision.

Now, here is where I might as well respond to the other fellow's suggestion that supreme court justices wring their hands and make greedy and ideological/parsan decisions from the bench. Sure, I'm not naive. They're human. But you what else they are? They're justices on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. They didn't get there by being ass-kissers. They got there with their clarity of vision. No other way. If they step down (yeah, right) and get elected to a legislative position....there could only be one purpose for why they did that. And it has everything to do with the difference between the role of a justice and the role of a legislator.

And one last thing. I hang it out here in a rather caricaturized way, for a purpose. In reality, as the people who actually know me are aware, I don't really have horns and I don't breathe fire and I don't suck blood out of peoples' necks. I may be somewhat less rabid than I come across here. I hang it out there, knowing that my remarks are going to, shall we say, heighten the discussion. That's deliberate. And I know that I'm going to take some heat and some abuse because of it. That comes with the territory. But what I do not appreciate is some guy coming in here for the purpose of ripping me a new one, personally. That's for you, Colin. If you've got a burr under your saddle blanket, then go beat up a dog or something. If you've got something constructive to interject, then great. I have invited you to do that several times. But if you're only interested in whacking on Superman personally, then the gloves are going to come off and we'll go bare knuckles. I'm offering actual ideas here. If you're not, then don't just chime in for the purpose of goading me. That will not work out smoothly.

Okay, RedBeard. You're right. The majority of the justices on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States of America are a bunch of immature children. They, with their legal educations and distinguished careers, and with the benefit of the complete file in front of them, the majority of them mind you, are not a match for your ability, without the same education, and without the file in front of you, to reach the proper decision. What is clearly a no-brainer for you, the majority of them missed completely. Is that what I need to believe in order for you to conclude that my faith has limits?

It appears that your faith and sarcasm have no limits...

The only SC justice I listen to and have faith in is the three liter oil cooled one, personally.

Aurel

Watch it red-beard - those gloves are going to come off and it won't work out smoothly. :eek:

SUpe:

Respectfully, you are not making any points here!!!

Politics is all local and all emotion.....