Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Damned Conservative Justices 9

Journal by pudge

Them damned conservative justices are taking away our right to medical marijuana, and allowing local authoritarian governments to steal our property and give it to evil corporations.

Oh wait, no, that was the liberal justices.

Huh. Never mind.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Damned Conservative Justices More

Damned Conservative Justices

Comments Filter:

  • Yep (Score:2)

    by extra88 ( 1003 )
    I just read about the personal property seizure decision on CNN and figured you'd comment on it. I think it's terrible. While private development and public good are not mutually exclusive and I can envision rare scenarios where an individual could stand in the way of much needed revitalization, I think Justice O'Connor is right about to what this decision will lead. Private developers will strike deals with (corrupt or foolish) public officials to grab valuable land from its current owners.

    In particular,
    • Ask the people in East Palo Alto who lost their homes when a HomeDepot came a callin' if they were able to buy another home in the Bay Area with the money they got.

      This is crazy. If a developer wants your land they are free to try to buy it from you. If you don't want to sell that should be your right. I have the government step in and force you to sell at a price of its choosing is something that would happen... In Soviet Russia!

  • If it's not clear to people where the biases lie in the Supreme Court, just compare this ruling to the Bush V. Gore [cloud9.net] ruling.
    • What I find funny is how many liberals use that case to argue that the conservatives only ruled how they did because of their political bias, when that same argument could be made about the liberals. (Oh, but the liberal justices were correct! yeah right ...)

      Not that Bush v. Gore matters. Seven justices, including a liberal Clinton appointee (Breyer), prevented the current count from continuing the count. If the count had continued, Bush likely would have won (as studies show Bush would have won that t
  • I just knew you'd have a journal about this out!

    I cannot believe this ruling. This has got to be one of the *worst* rulings they've ever produced.

    Sigh. Makes me want to move to Canada ;)

    • ... or just vote Republican! ;-)
      • Ha ha...

        I was pissed at this ruling, myself.

        I am for property rights (including intellectual). I am also generally against the overreaching power of the legal entity of corporations. So I vote independent, green, or democrat.

        I still don't get how the "liberal" justices even came up with such a wrong headed ruling. Really stupid.

        I haven't been able to find the full text of the majority and dissenting opinions. Anyone have a link. I just keep getting commentary (from both sides), and I am pretty sick
        • I still don't get how the "liberal" justices even came up with such a wrong headed ruling. Really stupid.

          Because the "liberal" justices are for significant and broad government power over the individual. That's what the "conservatives" have been warning about for years, but you lefties didn't listen because you were worried about other things. :-)

          I haven't been able to find the full text of the majority and dissenting opinions. Anyone have a link.

          Yep. [cornell.edu]

  • I'm just happy to see there was any dissent at all. :)

Slashdot Top Deals

"If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong." -- Norm Schryer

Close