"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
. net...
Stuart Grey wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:01:32 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:


Problem is, the way I understand it, it's the neocons that have been
consistently raping the constitution - case in point, the iminent
domain fiasco - they can take your house away as they see fit, if
there's more money in it for them.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 40+ yrs of Liberals chipping away, and in
some cases blasting away large chunks of the Constitution and you
babble about Neocons?


A cite or two might be interesting...


Btw...the Liberal Judges on SCOTUS were the ones who voted for
imminent domain..the conservative ones voted against it.

Well, I suspected something immediately when I read Justice Thomas
was in opposition. Went back to the original doc, and sure enough, the
file-clerk-in-a-dress was wrong, yet again.

The Constitution clearly says the government can take any property they
want, FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE, as long as they give "just compensation."
No restrictions except "due process."

This is a state and local issue, as correctly stated by the Court majority.
And the probability that the project will go through is pretty small, given
the [righteous] outrage that the publicity has generated. Lots of states
and
local jurisdictions are now, under pressure from liberal and conservative
and
NeoCon alike, taking the issue seriously and addressing it. It is hardly a
partisan issue - in fact the best argument is that it is CONSERVATIVES
who are all for taking your land and donating it to business.

So, the righties who are getting all huffy about "liberal" Justices are just
blowing smoke (or showing their ignorance).

Three Republican appointees - Kennedy, Souter and Stevens - voted in
favor of the egregiously bad and statist decision.

You're right!

If Republicans put liberal judges

"Liberal" here meaning "Constitutional."


on the courts, then the Republicans get blamed for the liberal judges.

As well they should be; at least, they should be blamed
for theirs.

Don't give him the benefit of the doubt that these judges are in any
way "liberal." I'd love to see him PROVE such a baseless assertion.

If Republicans DON'T put liberal judges on teh courts, then you whine
about fascist and Nazis.

False. When Republicans submit fascist and/or anti-Constitutional judges
(some, by their records, are partisan rather than Constitutional, e.g Bork)
"leftists" whine; otherwise, REAL judges get approved with little fanfare.

Now, would you hire a VP of Marketing who has two years of mid-level
management experience to run the biggest corporation in America? Geo.
Bush is trying to do the equivalent... The guy isn't even QUALIFIED, for
insert deity here's sake.

Not I. I don't think any of the conservative justices
are facists or Nazis. I do think Thomas is just a dumb
lackey for Scalia, but then Scalia is without question
the brightest justice on the court, so Thomas could
have picked worse.

A lot of the NeoCon leadership is bright. Absolutely against the America
I grew up loving, but certainly bright.

You should read the article on Rehnquist in the April
2005 issue of The Atlantic. The author, Jeffrey Rosen,
says that Rehnquist is one of the greatest chief
justices ever.


Have you written your Democrat congressmen and demanded that they don't
put idiot liberal judges on the court yet?


I personally haven't seen any "idiot liberal judges" being proposed. But, I
DO
read what the Republicans and others write about proposed judges.

The keys to a GOOD Justice are experience, knowledge, and impartiality
(non-partisanship). The ONLY way we have of ascertaining these qualities
is to read about their history, i.e. previous works and writings, and the
decisions they have made in the past. Which is why, of course, that the
Republicans wish to suppress all of this information when it is requested.

Unfortunately, the process becomes overly political when the Congress
doesn't do its duty and approves willy-nilly obviously unqualified or
partisan judges. The only saving grace is that, despite all the political
and financial pressure brought to bear, the lifetime appointment and the
awesomeness of the position, causes even some obstinate partisan hacks
to reassess their past and take the job seriously.

Dan