[1rudeboy]

Speaking of weak arguments¹, what about nic's apparent insistence that the U.S. Supreme Court has made the Kelo a matter of settled case law? Let's take a look at the conclusion of the Kelo Court:

We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose “public use” requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline.

How can this be, if the Supreme Court has spoken (more accurately, if the people who claim to be conservatives on this website claim to know what they are talking about with regard to Kelo)? Here is an interesting website from the National Conference of State Legislatures regarding Kelo and eminent domain. It does not appear that the issue is closed, as nic suggests.

_____
¹Please note that I am not arguing that Kelo is correctly decided. Any attempt to paint me with that brush will be met with the ridicule it deserves.

[Toddsterpatriot]

How can this be, if the Supreme Court has spoken (more accurately, if the people who claim to be conservatives on this website claim to know what they are talking about with regard to Kelo)?

So nic was wrong when he said once the Supreme Court passed (LOL!) a law, that was it? I'm shocked!

[nicmarlo]

what about nic's apparent insistence that the U.S. Supreme Court has made the Kelo a matter of settled case law??

As usual...you are a liar. Cite the post wherein I stated that Kelo was "a matter of settled law". You, once again, twist and misrepresent what I said. I specifically stated that the COURTS ARE MAKING LAWS...this in response to your tag team co-liar toad, who attempted to ridicule yorkie for stating that the courts are making laws, something that they do, via CASE LAW. Now, speak to the substance of the article, or go jump off a cliff.