[GCFL-discuss] Unwise court decisions

[Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List]

You are absolutely correct Lance. The language of the constitution is
general enough that people can differ over exactly what it means in
practice, but judges should be coming as close as they can to what it
says, not what they personally desire.

That is why all this rhetoric over what kind of judge this or that
nominee would be is so silly. It is not likely that any new justice would
drastically change what the law already is. The big questions a new
justice will face are not even known yet. As this article says:

IN THE MAGAZINE
Roberts v. the Future
By JEFFREY ROSEN
To learn about what kind of justice John G. Roberts Jr.
might turn out to be, the Senate should ask the questions
that will matter in 2015.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/magazine/28ROBERTS.html?th&emc=th
 
I don't know what those questions are, probably the president and the
senate don't either, and neither do the morons running TV commercials
about him.

It is also worth noting that when the Supreme Court says, there is no
constitutional reason a state CANNOT do a certain thing, that does not
then OBLIGATE states to do so. Many states are passing laws to prohibit
cities from using eminent domain the way the Supreme Court says they can.
The Supreme Court is not going to overturn those state laws. Cities do
not have a constitutional right to use eminent domain any way they want.
Cities are created by state law. All the court said was, individuals do
not have a federal constitutional protection from such use of eminent
domain. As Stevens said, if her were a legislator, he would not vote to
do any such thing. He just can't outlaw it, as a judge.

Siarlys