Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No Limits (George Will on Kelo- Surprising?)
NY Post ^ | June 24, 2005 | George Will

Posted on 06/23/2005 11:11:59 PM PDT by sirthomasthemore

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last
Comment #1 Removed by Moderator

To: sirthomasthemore

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1575546&mesg_id=1575546

DU, of all places, doesn't like the ruling.


2 posted on 06/23/2005 11:15:02 PM PDT by Checkers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Checkers

DU, while not liking the ruling, STILL manages to get it wrong though.

In their moonbat world, the 5 were conservatives and the 4 dissenters are liberals.

And its Bush's fault. Somehow


4 posted on 06/23/2005 11:19:34 PM PDT by Crazieman (If Con is the opposite of Pro, what is the opposite of Progress?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sirthomasthemore

Conservatives didn't do anything, liberals eviscerated private property rights. WTH is the bowtie whelping about? Its the conservatives fault? Cripes talk about relativism. He never castigates the "liberals" who gave birth to this monstrosity, just the conservative phantoms who are somehow enamored with "majoritarian rule". I'm telling ya, DC does strange things to folks.


5 posted on 06/23/2005 11:20:03 PM PDT by jwalsh07 ("Su casa es mi casa!" SCOTUS 6/23/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Checkers

They have it backwards. They say the dissenters are DUmmies and those who wrote in favor of this ruling were Conservative.


6 posted on 06/23/2005 11:21:47 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (Whop-bobaloobop a WHOP BAM BOOM!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Checkers

What conservative likes this ruling?

Does anybody except a political crony like this ruling?


7 posted on 06/23/2005 11:21:53 PM PDT by patriciaruth (They are all Mike Spans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
He never castigates the "liberals" who gave birth to this monstrosity

Because he is a liberal.

8 posted on 06/23/2005 11:22:51 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (Whop-bobaloobop a WHOP BAM BOOM!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth

What is surprising is this is the same USSC that basically told Al Gore to "Go To Hell" in 2000.


9 posted on 06/23/2005 11:24:36 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (Whop-bobaloobop a WHOP BAM BOOM!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Checkers

Will misses the point of the argument between judicial restraint vs. judicial activism entirely. Advocates for judicial restraint are not calling for the courts to automatically defer to all actions of the legislatures, only to restrain from acting in the place of the legislatures.


10 posted on 06/23/2005 11:25:13 PM PDT by Virginia Gentleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sirthomasthemore

"the power to tax involves the power to destroy"--McCulluch v. Maryland, 1819.

I can't think of a worse Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade.


11 posted on 06/23/2005 11:25:32 PM PDT by patriciaruth (They are all Mike Spans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth

"Does anybody except a political crony like this ruling?"

Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer like it.


12 posted on 06/23/2005 11:25:47 PM PDT by Checkers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Checkers
DU, of all places, doesn't like the ruling.



Actually, this ruling makes strange bed fellows, Checkers. DU doesn't like it cause it supports big business at the expense of the poor- (one of Justice Thomas' points)- and we don't like it because it constitutes government intrusion and an egregiously wrong interpretation of the Constitution.

We're all ticked off. If you note the MSM headlines, they are mostly negative. And if you want to read the weirdest editorial ever, read the Wash Post today. They said it was an "unjust" decision but "correct". Now figure that one out.
13 posted on 06/23/2005 11:26:28 PM PDT by sirthomasthemore (I go to my execution as the King's humble servant, but God's first!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: sirthomasthemore

Because the Washinton Post is mental. They have issues.


15 posted on 06/23/2005 11:27:43 PM PDT by Kay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Checkers

Those that opposed Bork own this decision.

They need to suck on "Kelo".


16 posted on 06/23/2005 11:27:52 PM PDT by Checkers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Checkers

Agree. Let the liberals realize how bad this is and it is totally their fault.


17 posted on 06/23/2005 11:29:33 PM PDT by Kay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sirthomasthemore

"Actually, this ruling makes strange bed fellows, Checkers. DU doesn't like it cause it supports big business at the expense of the poor- (one of Justice Thomas' points)- and we don't like it because it constitutes government intrusion and an egregiously wrong interpretation of the Constitution."

Yet, they will hate Justice Thomas forever.


18 posted on 06/23/2005 11:29:44 PM PDT by Checkers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

SCOTUS sunk Al Gore because the different counties were using different standards to do the recounts and because the whole State of Florida wasn't being recounted. That was 7-2.

That there wasn't time before the Electoral College vote to redress the error was 5-4.

They didn't tell All Gore to GTH. They told him he made a mistake and should have asked for the whole state, and told Florida Supreme Court they should have elucidated one standard.


19 posted on 06/23/2005 11:30:16 PM PDT by patriciaruth (They are all Mike Spans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Checkers

What do Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer have in common?


20 posted on 06/23/2005 11:31:09 PM PDT by patriciaruth (They are all Mike Spans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson