Do liberal judges favor wealthy developers over regular people?

Hmm...does that go for all governmental decisions? Any time you have an opinion, we can all safely dismiss it because you are not in government, eh?

In response to Chiroptera saying randman replies: Yet another example of randman continuing attempt to misprepresent his opponents, change the subject, play moving definitions, and avoid dealing with the issue.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Uh, that's because her post was not relevant. One of the jobs of the electorate is to have an informed opinion on the courts so we can vote accordingly, and that is part of the point of this thread.I think most liberals that aren't political activists disgree with this ruling, but nevertheless, this is what the political liberals put into place, and it's wrong, morally wrong, imo.What do you think of the OP topic?Have a comment on that or just want to attack people?

I'm not attacking people, I'm talking about the content of your messages and your behaviour. Certainly want to point out when you once again misrepresent what people have said. Seems to be quite common in your posts. Just as your latest response accuses me of attacking people instead of content and behaviour. I'd say the OP simply shows that once again, you are totally clueless. What is being done is no different than what has been done for hundreds of years. It's not a liberal vs conservative issue, it's called business as usual. The government has been busy transfering wealth from the citizens of the US into business pockets almost since day one. And one of the biggest excuses used has been "Public Interest". Often it works out well. Some good examples were the land grant incentives used to build the railroads and the Land Grant Colleges.Time will tell whether or not this decision will be implemented successfully. The decison is simply a continuation of trends that have been around since the establishment of the tobacco roads.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

How do you explain the fact that all the arch-conservatives voted against the ruling, and the liberals voted for it?Moreover, I think you are missing the point. The question is not whether this will "work" in terms of creating profit. It will probably work. Developers are very good at making money overall.The question is whether it is right to throw away individual's 5th Amendment rights to their private property. The liberals say it's right, and the conservatives say it's not right to take from the common man and give to the rich just so the local government can get more tax money.Where do you stand?

Well, they didn't take it. They paid him for it.

No liberals voted for it. There are no liberals on the supreme court. There are only moderates, conservatives and ideological extremists.

Whatever. If you don't think Ginsburg, Souter, etc,...are liberals, let's don't argue semantics.Why are the main ones supporting the rights of regular people not to have their property seized the right wing ideological extremists, and the ones the most to the Left backing wealthy developers?And why do you not answer the question of where you stand?This message has been edited by randman, 11-18-2005 01:08 AM

They still took their homes. The fact they got paid doesn't change that.

I put the blame on the city council (or whatever the body is called) of New London. They used poor judgement. I hope the people of New London throw them out at the next municipal election. In this case, that's where the proper outlet is for checks and balances.

Let's say the local government shuts down a newspaper they don't like, and the courts say, well, just forget about that free press clause. What it really means is that there is some free press, not that everyone is free.Do we blame just the local government and hope they throw those dudes out next election?The US Supreme court, led by the most leftist people on the court, just decided it was open season on the homes of poor folks. Do you know how much money can be made closing up poor neighborhoods and redeveloping them.Just make'em move....throw out the old folks to. They got no business stinking up our cities.Yippee, the democrats win!

That's a strawman argument. I can only feel sorry for you, that you are so confused as to think this a reasonable analogy. No, they didn't do that.

How else do you see it? They said it's OK for local governments to take away people's homes and give it to developers.

You are about to see me come to your defense in another post, but here is something which I have to point out... The fundie conservatives, including people like Bush and Co and Scalia and Co (in the courts) do shut down press they don't like. That's why I said this was a great example of their hypocrisy.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It's not that usual for me to disagree with you, and its really rare for me to agree with randman, but this is what is happening now.In another post you say if it was clear it wouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court. That's not true at all. All it has to be is divisive, or challenged to go to the Supreme Court.To me your argument is like saying a person must be guilty of something if they are charged with a crime. Going to the Supreme Court is merely a series of legal mechanics and choices by those involved in cases. Indeed it can even be naked political power plays which send something to the court.For example in the 2000 election, there is an amendment stating exactly what to do in that situation, yet not only did Reps ignore their own political doctrine of not interfering with state decision (because their guy was in jeopardy), they refused to acknowledge that amendment and created some new concept of having to have a president by a certain date or the nation falls apart. Date supercedes democratic will. Why? That is a pretty ludicrous statement to make.Scalia sits on the supreme court and I think his opinions are worthless. With two appointments from Bush, we could see a majority decision against Roe v Wade and gay rights (all gay rights, including a reversal of the decision allowing sex). That would mean if you disagreed with that your opinion wouldn't be relevant?I guess I am unsure if you mean relevant because it won't change anything, or relevant in that it cannot mean anything.Recent events should have made very clear that just because someone sits on the SC, their opinions are somehow more relevant. Miers could have ended up there, and she didn't seem to have much intellectual power at all.The SC is not a holy court of divinely knowledgeable entities. They are representatives of the people, put into place via political mechanisms, and are fallible just like all other people. They are just as "relevant" as anyone else... only their views carry legal weight.Maybe I'm just being egotistical, but I refuse to have the "relevance" of my own opinion on SC matters decided by may ability to be put into a chair via political machinery and in some cases naked power plays.Intriguingly, if your position is true, that means no democratic or nonfundie has any relevant opinion, as there is 0 chance any will make it onto the court at this time.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)