June 23, 2005
JUSTICE IS A TWO WAY STREET
I realize this sounds harsh, but I kind of like the Colombian attitude towards judges, and justices. If you find them opprobrious, blow them the fuck up, or pop they skulls. Amazing how that sort of retaliation engenders a bit of, shall we say, circumspection when reaching a decision.
This horseshit brings the idea to mind. The very idea of government taking your property by fiat, and delivering it to another private party in order to enhance tax revenues is disgusting, criminal behavior.
The Constitution envisioned checks and balances between the 3 branches of government, but no branch has been able to check the judiciary since Marbury v. Madison.
I'll bet Pablo Escobar could have checked that fucking balance. Hell, I'd pay $10 to see John Paul Stevens get whacked in a drive by.
Hey. Just trying to bring a little vox populi to the dialogue.
Amen, brother, amen.
Posted by: Bane at June 23, 2005 11:09 PMW, continuing to shrink day by day, didn't say 'boo' about it either.
Posted by: rankin' rob at June 24, 2005 11:12 PMGW was NEVER a conservative POTUS.
Witness McCain-Feingold, witness No Child Left Behind, witness prescription drug coverage, witness refusal to do anything about the borders, etc. etc. etc.............
It's getting harder and harder to be a conservative American with leaders to look to....
Posted by: rightisright at June 24, 2005 11:30 PMRice in 08.
Plus, she looks great in those black tall boots.
Posted by: og at June 25, 2005 11:00 AMKarl Rove in '08. Condi is a spineless lickspittle.
Posted by: Bane at June 25, 2005 1:01 PMActually, V-Man, you can't blame this on an unchecked judiciary - the problem in this case is that the judiciary FAILED to check the legislature.
It's legislatures that exercise eminent domain, not courts. All the court did in this instance was uphold the law. You know, people are always bitching about "unelected judges" going against the will of the people. Well, here you have judges upholding the presumable will of the people, as expressed by local elected officials.
So now what? People can lobby their state and local elected officials to pass laws that would prevent what happened in New London from happening in their cities. I think a few states already have laws addressing this.
Not saying I AGREE with the Court, btw. I think it was a bad decision. It's just that this is decidedly not a case of the judiciary overstepping its bounds.
Posted by: kc at June 25, 2005 1:39 PMIf I were you, I would re-work this post and tone it down a bit.
Big Brother is watching you.
Fukkem. Killem all, and let God sort them out.
Posted by: Bane at June 25, 2005 9:06 PMPoint well taken, kc. But when you have an activist judiciary that chooses to sheath the sword of activism to allow legislator thugs to exercise their revenue lusts, they put their imprimatur on the thievery. Sitting on one's hands can be very fucking activist.
Posted by: Velociman at June 25, 2005 11:26 PM