I'd just like to say that I think it's wonderful that we have so many esteemed legal scholars on this board.
It was a 9-0 ruling folks. That means that all of these judges- from Stevens to Scalia- agreed on it. Maybe, just maybe, these 9 judges, most of whom graduated top of their class from top law schools, know a little more about the law than posters on the Free Republic.
Nah, forget it- I'm sure you guys know better.
"Maybe, just maybe, these 9 judges, most of whom graduated top of their class from top law schools, know a little more about the law than posters on the Free Republic.
"
The fact someone went to law school means they know more about the law?
Hmmmm, we the people are required to obey the law but a study of those laws is required to understand them???
As usual, lawyers don't make any sense to a free country. Besides, mind exlpaining the property rights issue if they are sooooo educated, or is the purpose of law school to indoctrinate a person into communism?
It's not their 'law' knowledge that is the issue here -- it's their 'technology' knowledge.
The problem with being a 'legal' expert is you're trained to be able to argue *both* sides of any issue. So your only actual expertise lies in 'theory'.
Then they end up ruling on 'laws' that affect medicine, software design, engineering, etc -- without any actual expertise in those areas.
Yeah, we're just a bunch of rubes. I mean, we're just not sophisticated enough to understand that interstate commerce includes activities that involve neither commerce nor interestate movement.
We don't see the hidden meaning of the takings clause to where public use includes taking private property from one person and giving it to another because the latter party can generate more tax revenues than the former.
I hope I NEVER get that educated, to where the clear meaning of words no longer has any meaning.
Your analogy is pointless. The supremes are a joke. Or did you not see the ruling AGAINST private property last week?