The response on the left to this decision demonstrates that the right has no monopoly on criticizing SCOTUS decisions simply because they don’t like them.
Is there some other reason to criticize them?
Posted by Matt Davis at June 28, 2005 04:05 PMFUCK U BITCHS DEF. BUSH
Posted by PISSED OF KID at June 28, 2005 04:23 PMThe left would be wise to remember that the standard for the SCOTUS should be first rate legal minds.
Horseshit. Earl Warren was an Eisenhower political hack--did a hell of a job. Bork was clearly a first-rate legal mind; I sure as fuck didn't want the guy, and you shouldn't have, either.
Scalia is a first-rate legal mind. He's just a complete bunghole. Ginsburg is also a first-rate legal mind, and she's got some fundamental human decency. I hear they're close friends.
I'd rather send a person whose ethics I really respect to law school for a few years. Being a first-rate legal mind is not even remotely the same as being a justice that will be part of a first-rate society.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 28, 2005 04:50 PM
I think it's okay to disagree with a Supreme Court decision (left or right). The difference, I think, is that no one on the left is calling for Souter's impeachment - nor are we trying to pass laws restricting the SCOTUS from hearing eminent domain cases.
Disagreement is one thing. Trying to shut down the court - quite another.
I still don't like the result of the decisions, Marie. I never will - it's the one streak of libertarianism that I admit to having that's embarrassing. I'd disagree with you on O'Connor's opinion - I found it more penetrable and reasoned than others she's written. But I've already admitted that I side with her on the argument, so I suppose I'm not as unbaised in my opinion as I'd like to be.
Just one point - you said, "And no community should be subject to the tyranny of a single or a few landowners." Is that an analogous reasoing to the infamous solipism, "The needs of the many outwiegh the needs of the few"?
Posted by idiosynchronic at June 28, 2005 07:18 PMTh lft nc gn prvs t s frd, fgnng cncrn fr th lttl gy. Ths lnd s yr lnd, NT! - Mgb lt. Shrcrppr fls t nt p ngh rvn nd th vrlrds sz nd gv t t nthr srf wh prmss mr bndnt rtrns. n grt lp bckwrd.
[Editor: ignore=off]I'm being open minded about this decision, but here is a story about how The Floodgates seem to have opened on this one - Thanx Avedon
Posted by darms at June 29, 2005 07:09 AMHere is the problem with the left saying OH YEAY to the SCOTUS on this one.
The Right will say things like. The liberal fucks in the SCOTUS want the government to take your home.
I can then see liberals going nuts trying to explain the intricacies of the SCOTUS decision in this case, while Sean Hannity takes it for its face value and all his minions will say, you see the liberal courts want the government to take your house.
TAKE YOUR HOUSE. That is why the fucking left AND right are perfectly fine and natural in saying that KELO was shite. Because politically, it is shite. Any politician who doesn't say its shite will be deemed on the wrong side of the issue.
Cuz we don't believe in an America that can take away your picket fence right after your done building it.
So the left would be wise as hell politically to get against this decision. If you want to feel on the inside that it was right due to its intricacies, thats fine and dandy, but keep it to the cocktail parties.
Cuz the right will just say, they want the government to control everything even your property.
so shove it. you may be right on the merits of the case and the intricacies etc. but politically, it is suicide to get behind this decision and label the left with it.
so count me out.
Posted by media in trouble at June 29, 2005 12:35 PMThere are two principals involved in opposition to this decision: Property rights and human rights.
Many conservatives correctly point out that your property is not safe from unreasonable confiscation under this ruling.
The left correctly points out that the practical impact of this decision will be to take modest income properties away from their owners, perhaps at fire sale prices scince smallholders often cannot afford the best lawyers, so that the well heeled and influential can have them.
The states are able to modify this decision so the problem the practical left has is to form a coalition on this issue in state legislatures with those concerned about property rights. Then statutes can be enacted protecting property owners in each state. Cities and counties are subject to state control so if enough legislators, regardless of party, can come together in each state the unfairness of this ruling can be amended.
Posted by rlprather at June 29, 2005 02:43 PMMatt -- Bork was a first rate legal mind? Now that's horseshit. Disagree with the legal principles, precedents and logic of a decision -- not just whether or not it meets with your expectations.
Am disappointed at the comments here -- this decision reinforced not only states rights but local rights as well. Why is that a loser? Land usage and zoning is mostly a local matter. The SCOTUS didn't take anybody's house. The City of New London did -- the elected officeholders did. Democrats and liberals need to learn how to take back control at the local level and stop making everything a federal case.
Posted by Marie at June 29, 2005 03:13 PMMarie:
Am disappointed at the comments here[...]
The original post wasn't too hot, either. Too contortionate and diversionary for my tastes.
Posted by Toby Petzold at June 30, 2005 11:46 PM