Veep slot

[delldude]

I'm surprised in this day and age that the legislative branch hasn't gone bonkers over Judges basically writing there own law when its their job.Some ,like Teddy boy look for help in this area from these Judges.
Why aren't lower court Judges held to the extreme conformation process that the Supreme's are?After all.....it seems the lower courts play the extremist/activist game for the most part.

 

[777 fixer]

There are limited situations where I agree with it. If the state is trying to improve the transportation system then I can see a reason for it. However when Arlington Texas confiscated land to build a new foot ball stadium so that Jerry Jones and his little play mates could make a butt load of money and then on top of that issued public bonds to help pay for it and then on top of that raised the tax in Arlington to help pay for the bonds .... suffice to say I am glad I do not live in that city and I am glad I do not care for sports.

In this case as in a lot of cases I believe it is clear abuse of power on the part of the government. Yes I am fully aware that the democratic minority (with O'conner tilting the balance) voted to uphold the case and that is one issue. Over all, eminent domain does not affect that many people (at least not that I have heard) as opposed to issue such as control over ones body, who one chooses to marry, habeas corpus rights and other issues similar to these. These are issues that I feel are far more important.

Over all, I believe the conservative activist judges are far more dangerous than the liberal activist judges.

People say that eminent domain is not that important until it happens to them. In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of New London, Conn in the case of Kelo vs. New London. Basically what it does is enable any local government to force people off their property if they decide it would benefit the "public". Now in the past eminent domain was used to make way for things like freeways and airports. However in this case it was used to make way for a shopping mall and restaurants. Not exactly what you would call public use.

So basically what you have with this decision any local government can come in and declare under the guise of "redevelopment" eminent domain. You know who the dissenting justices were? O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.

 

[Cosworth]

People say that eminent domain is not that important until it happens to them.

Agreed but as I said, I believe that this issue affects far fewer people than other issues with which I agree with such as abortion, equality for gays as well as other civil rights issues. I did not agree with Clinton on all issues but far more than I agreed with compared to Bush I. I guess it comes down to the better of two evils.

 

[Bobbie]

WRONG