Cynical Nation

Unbelievable. So much for the Bill of Rights. It's amazing what passes for "due process of law" these days.

I wonder whether the liberals who always raise the specter of the erosion of our rights under a "conservative" Supreme Court will still feel the same way when their houses have been bulldozed to make room for a strip mall.

You think we'll be better off if the SC gets more conservative?

I cannot imagine how anyone would think that this is a liberal view. I also cannot imagine what the hell those justices were thinking. These are people's homes. It is not acceptable to oust them in order to further commerce. It is not acceptable to raze someone's house to make room for a new resort hotel.

> You think we'll be better off if the SC gets more conservative?

To the extent that conservatism means defending property rights and limiting government's power to curtail said rights, then yes, I think we'd be better off. Remember the recent medical marijuana decision? It was very similar in its scope. The Court essentially ruled that the commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate anything it damn well wants to. Once again, it was the Court's most "conservative" jurists who dissented. So yes, give me more like these, please.

It's not a liberal view, but the decision was rendered by the liberal-leaning justices. It was the conservatives (and moderate) that dissented.

BTW, I'm surprised that Jill hasn't commented yet on this topic on B@B.

I wouldn't hold my breath. This one's going to be a challenge for her to incorporate into her "reality based" worldview. ;-)

This ruling does kind of put a kink in the whole "Republicans will appoint conservative justices that will trample on the indiviual's rights" scare tactic. Nothing like a good object lesson. :)

OK, the conservative justices dissented here. That doesn't mean I trust W to appoint people who will make good decisions. So I guess it's not so much conservative judges I worry about as it is people whom specifically our President favors.

I feel betrayed by the so-called liberal justices in this matter. Taking away people's homes for private use is not what I consider to be in their best interest, you know?

hey, barry, i just dropped by to thank you for visiting my site via tami the one true.

as to this decision, i would think it's obvious now that the folks in charge are neither conservative nor libertarian, but simply greedy and corrupt.

yet, to pour salt in the wound, they got there on the conservative and/or libertarian platforms.

we on the left are not surprised at actions like this.

i have no beef with actual conservatives, because they believe in conserving things, like money, balancing the budget, environmental conservation.

these guys are only in it for themselves.

It's official now. We don't own property, we only lease it from the government. We can be evicted any time, for any reason, or no reason at all.I live on forty acres that my wife's grandfather bought from an Indian. Right now, someone down at the courthouse is considering what that land would be worth with 80 houses on it.
We held on to the second amendment because the well armed members of the NRA stood up and said:
"Pry it out of my cold dead hand!"
Sooner or later, some local homeowner's association will have to say:
"Over our dead bodies!"

This decision is a microcosm of everything that is fundamentally unsound with the Democrats unspoken mantra of "Trust us. We know better."

Truly a disgusting ruling by the biggest horse's ass on the court - and Gerald Ford's biggest mistake (yes, including Nixon).

Was there a power failure on the left side of blogisphere today? KoZ, Talking Points Memo, B@B, etc. all just decided to pretend that the Supreme Court ruling didn't take place.

Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

I noticed that too, and I was going to make a post about it. I notice that Atrios does at least make (very) tepid defense of the decision:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_atrios_archive.html#111957059575603087

Perhaps they are all waiting for Chairman Dean's e-mail telling them how best to respond.

Hang in there, Jill. You'll get your instructions just as soon as the DNC figures out how to respond to Karl Rove. ;-)

Yes it does suck!

If you think any of the potential jurors that Bush wants to name to the U.S. Supreme Court are conservative by your definition, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you. The fact of the matter is that 7 of the 9 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans. The Republican party of today is no more "conservative" than the Bolshevik Party of Brezhnev was -- the Bolsheviks existed in order to loot the wealth of nations for the benefit of a Party elite, and so too do the Busheviks. The only difference is the ideology they use to arrive there. One Party used Marx as their little red book, the other Party uses Adam Smith as their little red book. Neither gives a flying flip about conservative principles such as limited government, balanced budgets, and federalism (as vs. centralized power). It's all about power, wealth, greed, and how much money they can suck out of the pockets of honest hard-working citizens.

Today's Republican Party believes in democracy only when it's convenient to them. Thus why they are using force of arms to overrule the democratically-passed laws of California and Oregon regarding medical marijuana and physician-assisted suicide. That is not the act of a Party that loves democracy. That is the act of a Party that hates democracy.

- Badtux the Libertarian Penguin