Your Lying Eyes

Dedicated to uncovering the truth that stands naked before your lying eyes.

E-mail Me

Twitter: yourlyingeyes

23 June 2005

Justice Stevens Goes Federalist

The Parapundit, Randall Parker, has a nice rant on the latest disappointing Supreme Court decision. With an apparent straight face, the hapless Justice John Paul Stevens says that state and local governments know what's best for their citizens and so taking people's property under almost any circumstances is good enough by him. Of course earlier in the year he was positive that people who run prisons don't know anything about how inmates behave and that he was pretty sure that racial problems in prisons happen only because negative thoughts are planted in inmates' heads by racially conscious prison officials. Oh well - the wisdom of our Philosopher Kings.
Traditionally, when a developer wants land to build on he has to go out and buy the land from the current owners. If he's smart, he can probably pull it off without too much trouble, but if the property owners get wind of the deal they can turn it into a little windfall for themselves. But if all the developer has to do is go to the state to get the properties condemned, then all the hard work is done. The state is then distorting the market, and the homeowners get ripped off.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Harlem said...

There are numerous recent examples of the "State" (various states) stealing homeowners' land for less than virtuous reasons. Check out www.Boortz.com for a terrible example in Alabama. The original idea was that we have to take your land because "we are going to build a Cranford Municipal Pool" but has morphed into "your house is ugly and on 3 acres and a developer wants to build a new sub-division" or "your little business stands in the way of Wal-Mart coming in"
While some may understand and appreciate what these city fathers are trying to do in the "advancement" of their community, it is just wrong. It clearly is outside what the original concept of "eminent (sp) domain" was intended for.
While we are at it, are we comfortable with an 85 year old judge (John Paul Stevens) on the Court? While I realize it is a life time appointment, would some age limittation be in order?
Is it realistic to think that an 85 year old guy has a full, complete grasp on the issues, law and application to real life? I sure won't when I'm 85 and haven't met too many 85 year olds who do.
I've got nothing against JP Stevens (or any other 85 year old) but would you elect an 85 year old Senator (except in the Carolina's)or President?
Charles J Stevens III for Supreme Court Judge!
Harlem

July 01, 2005 9:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home