[babyface00]

God knows I don't like the results this ruling will have, but, as a Conservative, or what I thought was a Conservative, I'm wondering if the decision isn't consistent with Conservative belief.

Don't we believe that the Constitution is supposed to provide limits to the Federal government? Don't we believe that state and local governments should be independent of the federal government as much as possible?

By this ruling, the SC is saying that state and local governments are free to define eminent domain as they will. From a practical standpoint, most states are probably going to interpret that liberally, but how we run our states isn't the federal government, or the SC's problem. If eminent domain is abused, our recourse should be to our state and/or local legislators, not to the SC and not to the feds unless its an abuse by the federal government.

Sure, this ruling is inconsistent with the SC's ruling on other subjects, but taking the ruling by itself, doesn't it represent what we advocate?

Again, I don't like the probable results of this ruling, but that isn't necessarily the SC's fault.

[conserv13]

You are right. Some states and localities do not have eminent domain laws. Move there.

[jsh3180]

""Again, I don't like the probable results of this ruling, but that isn't necessarily the SC's fault""

You hit the nail on the head there in my opinion. Read my post above #212. The SC decides on the merits of the law. The liberal democrats have become quite adept at stealing property rights. They made the law in Connecticut and they crafted it with proper legal language.

The solution is to do away with liberal thieving government lawyers, not in bashing the SC.

[reflecting]

Your local and state government does not have the ability to modify free speech rights, religious freedom rights etc.

[tumblindice]

Because federal law (the 5th Amend.) `trumps' state law ("WeSaySo") and if the federal government is prohibited under the Fifth Amendment from taking private property unless it is for a public purpose, then so are state and local governments.

But wait, the last sentence in the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights is just---obiter dictum after today!

Further, SCOTUS can open their session with a prayer as well as display the 10 Commandments, but we plebes in the provinces may not.

[ninenot]

Nope, it's NOT consistent with "conservative values."

Or at least the Supremes are not--viz. last week's decision to overturn medical maryjane.

That's why you can diagnose this as Statism, rather than 'conservatism.'

[CSM]

What other enumerated rights are the State's capable of rescinding? Allowing enumerated rights to be "interpreted" by anyone is as Conservative as allowing an athiest to interpret the Bible for the purpose of influencing church doctrin.

The authors of every ammendment chose each word purposefully and with the full intent of the meaning of that word. Strict adherence to the language of the constitution is Conservative, interpretation is nothing but destruction of the greatest document ever authored by man.