oldschool CxC

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Somebody (one of you lawyer types) explain to me the implication of this ruling. Does this mean that if Walmart wants to put a store on the Crest, the city can give that right to a developer and kick out a bunch of people from their homes?

Ari says, "Yup!" That was among the latest SHOCKING Supreme Court decisions, along w/saying that a public sculpture of the 10 Commandments at a Texas govt building was not defying the bar between religion and govt.

when did all this happen in the US?

Ari says, "Uh, Republicans favor rights of business over individual (if they have less than 10mil in assets)." Not likely this'd happen under Democrats (even though I think they're quite similar parties)...

try to explain it in really easy terms 'cause I'm not too smart in these things.


Blogger Erik said...

Same as my post about the medical marijuana ruling: the government, he hate me.

But you're right -- they've officially changed the standard for takings from 'public use' to 'public good' and have defined the latter to mean something as nebulous as increased tax revenue or job creation. As Sony said to me the other day, what prevents them from taking someone's private home and turning it over to someone else to build a bigger private home (and thus higher prop. tax)? Absolutely nothing, according to the Court.

And these are the 'liberal' members of the court bringing us this and the pot ruling by the way -- those evil conservatives like Thomas and Rhenquist have the correct but unfortunately minority view. Remember that when a new justice gets appointed in the coming year, and congress focuses on abortion rights as a litmus test.

9:37 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home