On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:05:17 GMT, Tom Quackenbush
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
snip
The decision for which, I will reiterate, was rendered by the *liberal*
block of the Supreme Court with the collusion of the "moderate" Sandra
O'Connor (moderate in this usage being defined as a liberal without the
brazos to declare themselves so).
snip

Can you elaborate on how O'Conner colluded with the "liberal" block
in the Kelo case?


My apologies, the vote for the siezure case was 5-4. In this case
O'Connor actually voted in the dissent; the original story upon which I
based my comment above had indicated she was one of the 5. (No, it was an
AP posting shortly after the ruling, so don't go "right wing whacko media
here"). That was obviously in error and has since been corrected as a
Google search just indicated.

My original rant was based upon that originally erroneous story and the
fact that she has in the past sided with things such as upholding the
reversal of first amendment rights in the campaign finance reform law
decision. Given that occurence, I didn't question what I had originally
read.

R,
Tom Q.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+