Supreme Court is out of control

In article >, James C. Reeves wrote:

> How so? It was a 5-4 split decision. with the traditionally more liberal
> members of the high court that voted for the big guy in this case. The
> conservative members sided with the "little guy" on this one.

The way democrats are for the little guy in that they are telling the
little guys what is best for them. This ruling fits perfectly with that
elitest mentality of the left. They get to decide, in government, what is
best for everyone.

What I found strange is that those representing the right wing didn't
rule for it in favor of big business. The abboration sadly is
the justices who stood up for the bill of rights for a change.

On 25 Jun 2005 01:11:18 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Paul. > wrote in
uth.net:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:12:53 -0400, Alex Rodriguez , said the
>> following in rec.autos.driving...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if it was the same idiots for the dog sniffing who voted for
>>> the seizure of property?
>>
>> Probablly. Those 9 senile old idiots have been there for quite a
>> while.
>>
>
>Uh,the vote was 5-4,not unanimous.
>It appears that at least 4 USSC Justices still obey the Constitution.
>
>This is what the US People get for electing socialist Presidents who select
>socialist USSC "Justices".

Do you have any clue as to who nominated the most current SCOTUS
judges?

Obviously not, since you just made that statement.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 23:38:26 -0500, DTJ > wrote:

>The fact is that anyone who wants to look at the situation objectively
>will know which party is better, or less evil.

You're being facetious, aren't you?

Neither Democrats nor Republicans have a monopoly on greed or
corruption and simply claiming your political philosophy is "better,
or less evil" doesn't carry any weight without rational argument to
back that up.




> The ones who can't see
>that are not going to listen to reason. Those who can see that won't
>change their minds easily, because they have seen the facts.
>Interestingly enough, those people who can see, make up a decent
>portion of both parties.

DTJ wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2005 11:04:08 -0700, wrote:
>
> >> While I see your point, sometimes people get so upset over the
> >> radicals in the other party that they stoop to the same low level that
> >> the radicals do.
> >
> >That does not make it acceptable. It's an excuse - a way to avoid
> >being responsible for one's actions.
>
> Or, wow, maybe it is just a reaction to idiots like you.
>
> >> I hate liberalism.
> >
> >All that means is that you *hate.*
>
> To an idiot

Ah, yes - when faced with an argument you cannot address - you call
names. Intellectually inferior.

> >Nothing more. If liberalism were everything ascribed to it by it's
> >enemies, then it would have seen the dustbin of history long ago. Yet
>
> Those who fail to study history are bound to repeat the same mistakes.

While Santayana was wise, you obviously don't "get it." Liberalism is
at the heart of change. Conservatives fight change, and fail every
time. There has never been a change in ideas that conservatives have
successfully fought off.

> The democrats obviously failed to study history.

LOL. From you, that's rich.

>
> >radical ideas find slow acceptance, and soon enough, the Earth is no
> >longer the center of the universe, men no longer own other men in a
> >free society, and people of color may vote.
>
> Only because conservatives came to power and changed the rules to
> allow free men and women to vote.

LOL, again. Women were allowed to vote OVER the objections of
conservatives. In fact, there are some conservatives today who suggest
it was a bad thing to allow women to vote.

Civil rights legislation was passed by legislative and executive
branches in control of liberals. Try again?

> >"Some of my best friends are black."
>
> I am happy for you. Of course, only an idiot would say something like
> that, but we already know you are.

Nice snip out of context. Of course, I was making fun of your "some of
my friends are democrats" line. Obviously having intellectual trouble
again, aren't you?

> >> The fact is that anyone who wants to look at the situation objectively
> >> will know which party is better, or less evil.
> >
> >Except that's just your bias. We know which one *you* think is less
> >evil - but that doesn't mean you arrived at that conclusion using pure
> >logic.
> >
> >Other reasonable people come to just the opposite conclusion. But in
> >your mind, they serve evil, while you serve good.
>
> You once again prove you are an idiot.

You can repeat it as many times as you like, and I'll still be smarter
than you.

Your bias is toward conservatism. Plainly. But that doesn't imply
that the Republican party is "less evil," as you claim above. It's
just your bias.

Pretending otherwise is weak-mindedness.

> clearly indicate that there are people in both parties who have seen
> the facts.

"The facts" as you say, are just a set of codewords for "stuff I
believe to be true."

Conservatives used to believe that black people were less than human.
And that Jews were the cause of the world's problems. And that the
universe revolved around the flat earth. And on, and on, and on. What
you hold to be "facts" (without knowing precisely what you consider
fact, and what you consider fiction), may not be, no matter how hard
you wish to believe otherwise.

Honest people can recognize and acknowledge their biases. Why can't
you at least be that honest? Or is honesty one of those "moral values"
that only liberals lack?

E.P.

In article et>,
says...
>
>
>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:12:53 -0400, Alex Rodriguez , said the following
>in rec.autos.driving...
>
>
>>
>> I wonder if it was the same idiots for the dog sniffing who voted for the
>> seizure of property?
>
>Probablly. Those 9 senile old idiots have been there for quite a while.

Don't blame them all. It was not a unanimous decision.
--------------
Alex

"James C. Reeves" wrote:

> It was the most liberal members of the high court that sided with the
> interests of the "big guys". Ironically, it was the more conservative
> members that sided with the "little guy" on this one.

Not ironic at all. Proper conservatives vote for individual rights over
collective rights every time.

--
Cheers, Bev
=========================================
"Welcome to Hell, here's your accordion."

On 24 Jun 2005 19:37:20 -0700, wrote:

>
>
>Jim Yanik wrote:
>>
>> This is what the US People get for electing socialist Presidents who select
>> socialist USSC "Justices".
>>
>
>Yeah - John Paul Stevens, that noted leftist (laff) was appointed by
>another notorious leftist.
>
>Gerald Ford.
>
>Anthony Kennedy? Yup, a Republican appointed by Reagan.
>
>Hey, even David Souter is a Republican. Appointed by Bush I.
>
>Better luck next time, doofus.
>

And neo-cons wonder why other Americans are nervous about Bush's
nominee(s)-to-be.

>E.P.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:36:20 -0700, L Sternn > wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 23:38:26 -0500, DTJ > wrote:
>
>>The fact is that anyone who wants to look at the situation objectively
>>will know which party is better, or less evil.
>
>You're being facetious, aren't you?

No.

>Neither Democrats nor Republicans have a monopoly on greed or
>corruption and simply claiming your political philosophy is "better,
>or less evil" doesn't carry any weight without rational argument to
>back that up.

So, you are suggesting that you don't think one party is better than
the other. I find that hard to believe.

Nate seems to think that right now the democrats are better. I
disagree. However, I will bet that he has thought out his position,
and understands exactly why he feels the way he does. That's good
enough for me to respect him, even though I disagree.

On 26 Jun 2005 23:11:16 -0700, wrote:

snip of MAJORITY of ignorant incorrect post...

>Conservatives used to believe that black people were less than human.

Uh huh. That would explain why we fought to end slavery.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 21:47:37 -0500, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article > , 223rem wrote:
>> Is their goal to crush civil liberties and stomp on the poor?
>
>To make us poor, to rule over us with complete power.
>
>> Lately, they have:
>>
>> - Ruled to ban marijuana for cancer patients
>>
>> - Allowed police to use drug-sniffing dogs to check out
>> any car they stop for a traffic violation
>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGIMAVRML1.DTL
>>
>> - And today, they ruled that Cities May Seize Homes
>> (of course, poor peoples' houses, not the mansions of the rich)
>
>The rich have the resources to fight government, the poor do not.
>
>Example, two expressway projects yet to get off the ground. The northern
>extension of IL53 and the extension of I355 (really the same expressway
>at different ends) On the north end, the rich still live in their homes
>are are still fighting the development. In the south, the not rich were
>moved out and their homes destroyed years ago.
>
>In any case, the paranoia I have been accused of is coming to pass.

Much as I hate this idea, the Nation has an interest in doing _something_ about
the damn NIMBYs. One guy on TV said they had ultimately offered him $150K for
a house you could see, as he was standing beside it, was clearly not worth
$150K. He was just holding out for a jackpot at the public's expense. While
condo's and shopping malls may or may not be the sort of public interest that
the founding fathers had in mind, the right of way for a high speed rail's
consortium _is_, and the current thinking seeems to be that _nothing_ can be
built in the way of HS rail because of the NIMBYs. Well, maybe the Nation can
progress now... maybe we can have HS rail even if it is done with private
money.

Dave Head