BrooklynBound
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Messages
- 425
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 16
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 24 2008, 09:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 24 2008, 09:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 08:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ Are you saying John Yoo was wrong?</div>
I don't know what John Yoo said about this, and I don't really care. Of course, I know hundreds of current and former government attorneys--many in very senior positions in this administration--and so I'm naturally skeptical about their positions when I hear them. Everyone has an agenda. Never, ever forget that. Be cynical about everything, and always try to ask yourself what someone's angle is.
</div>
Eh, I'm not aware of his saying anything about <u>Kelo</u>, but referring obliquely to his relative experience when he was counsel to the Judiciary Committee... Probably should have put a smiley face there to indicate.
At any rate, my issue with <u>Kelo </u>is on purely Constitutional grounds. Despite that, I still don't think that it's necessary here regardless. It just doesn't make any sense for the Court to hear this case when it just decided <u>Kelo </u>a few years ago and neither the Court's makeup nor the facts could conceivably support a reversal.
</div>
Now that is undoubtedly true. One thing that is often worth explaining to people is that the Supreme Court is not required to take appeals; they get to pick and choose among many hundreds of cases to find those that are the most interesting for one of a variety of reasons.
I truly respect your interest in all these legal issues. It's important (and it is something that I don't have, to be honest). But there are no absolute rights and wrongs, just opinions. To say that "Case X was decided incorrectly" does an injustice to both the legal system and the readers. If you've ever served as a judicial clerk, you would know that you get inundated with factual information and legal arguments, and it is often difficult to pare it down to the one kernal of truth that will decide a case. To say that a case was decided incorrectly like it is an obvious, unassailable position, is just misleading, unfair, and manipulative--and serves to just create the impression that you have your own agenda. It's counterproductive.
Best,
Dumpy
</div>
It was. There's no justification for stripping landowners of their property rights so that a corporation has a sweeter business deal.
I don't know what John Yoo said about this, and I don't really care. Of course, I know hundreds of current and former government attorneys--many in very senior positions in this administration--and so I'm naturally skeptical about their positions when I hear them. Everyone has an agenda. Never, ever forget that. Be cynical about everything, and always try to ask yourself what someone's angle is.
</div>
Eh, I'm not aware of his saying anything about <u>Kelo</u>, but referring obliquely to his relative experience when he was counsel to the Judiciary Committee... Probably should have put a smiley face there to indicate.
At any rate, my issue with <u>Kelo </u>is on purely Constitutional grounds. Despite that, I still don't think that it's necessary here regardless. It just doesn't make any sense for the Court to hear this case when it just decided <u>Kelo </u>a few years ago and neither the Court's makeup nor the facts could conceivably support a reversal.
</div>
Now that is undoubtedly true. One thing that is often worth explaining to people is that the Supreme Court is not required to take appeals; they get to pick and choose among many hundreds of cases to find those that are the most interesting for one of a variety of reasons.
I truly respect your interest in all these legal issues. It's important (and it is something that I don't have, to be honest). But there are no absolute rights and wrongs, just opinions. To say that "Case X was decided incorrectly" does an injustice to both the legal system and the readers. If you've ever served as a judicial clerk, you would know that you get inundated with factual information and legal arguments, and it is often difficult to pare it down to the one kernal of truth that will decide a case. To say that a case was decided incorrectly like it is an obvious, unassailable position, is just misleading, unfair, and manipulative--and serves to just create the impression that you have your own agenda. It's counterproductive.
Best,
Dumpy
</div>
It was. There's no justification for stripping landowners of their property rights so that a corporation has a sweeter business deal.
