0a6f90b2   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,   
   talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: can.politics   
   From: wy_@myself.com   
      
   On 18 Apr, 14:09, "Jeff Strickland"  wrote:   
   > "wy"  wrote in message   
   >   
   > news:6a231d9a-f8cf-4f09-9c70-f93846ef42eb@cm2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...   
   >   
   > > How about Kelo? Do you agree   
   > > with both of them?   
   >   
   > 5-4.  It's not valid when the 4 that voted against it were all of the   
   > same right wingnut stripe.  The point is that it doesn't matter if   
   > you're left or right.  As soon as left or right votes one way or   
   > another as a solid block, especially when the court is made up as a   
   > 5-4 split to facilitate such voting blocks, then any decision made as   
   > a result of partisan voting blocks is invalid since politics taints   
   > what should be objective legal conclusion.   
   >   
   > +++++++++++++++++++++++++   
   >   
   > Sorry to butt in, but I have to say the court was wrong on Kelo and right on   
   > Roe (even if I object to the outcome).   
   >   
   > I think Kelo was wrong, without regard to whom voted how.   
   >   
   > Eminent domain should only be used for taking land for public   
   > infrastructure -- a fire house or library or roadway, those sorts of public   
   > projects -- never for private development.   
   >   
   > If a developer wants a shopping mall and there is private property that he   
   > needs to clear the path for his plan, then he must negotiate a deal with the   
   > private land owner to acquire the land that is needed. It is never proper   
   > that a city council can say to a citizen, "pack your bags, we want to build   
   > a strip mall here." It's barely proper that they say, "pack your bags, we   
   > need a new fire house," because the firehouse could be built across the   
   > street or on the next parcel over. But if there was a proper time or place   
   > for the city council to tell somebody to pack their belongings, it is to   
   > build public infrastructure that cannot go elsewhere.   
   >   
   > Personally, I have mixed feelings on Roe.   
   >   
   > As much as I have not got a uterus and should not people what to do with   
   > theirs, I think the societal position should be that abortion is bad and the   
   > choice should favor life. If a woman still wants to abort, then I cannot   
   > stop her. But I should be able to influence the decision before it comes to   
   > the point where the decision must be made.   
   >   
   > From the perspective of the court, the decision is right to allow abortion.   
   > But the training we give to our children should make the election to abort   
   > happen far less than it happens now. If the court had said that it is   
   > reasonable that government pry into our private lives in such an intimate   
   > way, then in what other intimate ways could it also pry? So, it was correct   
   > to say that a woman's body is her own and she makes the choice to do with it   
   > as she wants.   
   >   
   > But we can have a social agenda that makes girls -- and boys for that   
   > matter -- grow into child-bearing ages with a respect for life that makes   
   > them not do things that cause babies to develop, and if they do do those   
   > things then the decision to abort is a very difficult one to make.   
      
   Finally, somebody in this thread who properly reasons things out -   
   besides me, of course.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)