<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.
I honestly didn't know about this issue. Very very interesting. The fascist claim made me laugh though. If anything, supporting complete disregard for market values is closer to fascism (not that anyone's remotely close to such an extreme level).
<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
^ It is true that every shade of gray comes into play in a case like this (or <u>Kelo</u>). Nor is it, in fact, the area of Constitutional Law for which I've been gaining some recognition - though it interests me as an application of general Court politicking in relation to jurisprudence, especially with Kennedy providing the tie-breaking vote and a concurrence besides. However, depending on how the makeup of the Court changes in the near future, <u>Kelo </u>could well get overruled - though it could end up being another <u>Wickard </u>(shudder). In terms of calling a case correctly/incorrectly decided, since I am not a clerk but involved in other areas of the law, it most certainly is part of the applicable 'style' to argue on a persuasive level when trying to make a point. Were I explaining the issue, rather than making a pointed observation, my wordage would obviously reflect that. In cases like these, however, a more strident approach obtains a better response - which should better clarify the issues involved in both cases. About the only tactic I won't resort to in cases like these, is personally attacking others.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 09:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ It is true that every shade of gray comes into play in a case like this (or <u>Kelo</u>). Nor is it, in fact, the area of Constitutional Law for which I've been gaining some recognition - though it interests me as an application of general Court politicking in relation to jurisprudence, especially with Kennedy providing the tie-breaking vote and a concurrence besides. However, depending on how the makeup of the Court changes in the near future, <u>Kelo </u>could well get overruled - though it could end up being another <u>Wickard </u>(shudder). In terms of calling a case correctly/incorrectly decided, since I am not a clerk but involved in other areas of the law, it most certainly is part of the applicable 'style' to argue on a persuasive level when trying to make a point. Were I explaining the issue, rather than making a pointed observation, my wordage would obviously reflect that. In cases like these, however, a more strident approach obtains a better response - which should better clarify the issues involved in both cases. About the only tactic I won't resort to in cases like these, is personally attacking others.</div> see, that's where I disagree. To me, your argument would be far more effective if it was phrased as "I think X was decided wrong, and here's why." Quite frankly, I've long forgotten everything I learned regarding constitutional law or criminal procedure, and, as I have no interest or time to read law review articles or 700-page books, I'd welcome the opportunity to read a short, four-sentence blurb on what a case stood for and why you think it was in error. As is, I don't understand three quarters of what you write, because I don't have any context, and I haven't the time nor the energy to research it myself. Not to mention an overly-cynical view of the way Washington operates right now. Just something to think about in the future. Best, Dumpy
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 24 2008, 10:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 09:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ It is true that every shade of gray comes into play in a case like this (or <u>Kelo</u>). Nor is it, in fact, the area of Constitutional Law for which I've been gaining some recognition - though it interests me as an application of general Court politicking in relation to jurisprudence, especially with Kennedy providing the tie-breaking vote and a concurrence besides. However, depending on how the makeup of the Court changes in the near future, <u>Kelo </u>could well get overruled - though it could end up being another <u>Wickard </u>(shudder). In terms of calling a case correctly/incorrectly decided, since I am not a clerk but involved in other areas of the law, it most certainly is part of the applicable 'style' to argue on a persuasive level when trying to make a point. Were I explaining the issue, rather than making a pointed observation, my wordage would obviously reflect that. In cases like these, however, a more strident approach obtains a better response - which should better clarify the issues involved in both cases. About the only tactic I won't resort to in cases like these, is personally attacking others.</div> see, that's where I disagree. To me, your argument would be far more effective if it was phrased as "I think X was decided wrong, and here's why." Quite frankly, I've long forgotten everything I learned regarding constitutional law or criminal procedure, and, as I have no interest or time to read law review articles or 700-page books, I'd welcome the opportunity to read a short, four-sentence blurb on what a case stood for and why you think it was in error. As is, I don't understand three quarters of what you write, because I don't have any context, and I haven't the time nor the energy to research it myself. Not to mention an overly-cynical view of the way Washington operates right now. Just something to think about in the future. Best, Dumpy </div> It would seem that we have a stylistic disjunct then. Though I should mention that I generally don't have the energy to fill in all the context myself, unless it's an area that I'm actually specializing in. In those areas, I actually get paid to read and absorb as much as humanly possible (talk about a dream job for me). This, again, is not quite one of them, except indirectly as it pertains to the Court's ideological makeup or in historical context. The cynicism part I can agree with categorically.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 09:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 24 2008, 10:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 09:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ It is true that every shade of gray comes into play in a case like this (or <u>Kelo</u>). Nor is it, in fact, the area of Constitutional Law for which I've been gaining some recognition - though it interests me as an application of general Court politicking in relation to jurisprudence, especially with Kennedy providing the tie-breaking vote and a concurrence besides. However, depending on how the makeup of the Court changes in the near future, <u>Kelo </u>could well get overruled - though it could end up being another <u>Wickard </u>(shudder). In terms of calling a case correctly/incorrectly decided, since I am not a clerk but involved in other areas of the law, it most certainly is part of the applicable 'style' to argue on a persuasive level when trying to make a point. Were I explaining the issue, rather than making a pointed observation, my wordage would obviously reflect that. In cases like these, however, a more strident approach obtains a better response - which should better clarify the issues involved in both cases. About the only tactic I won't resort to in cases like these, is personally attacking others.</div> see, that's where I disagree. To me, your argument would be far more effective if it was phrased as "I think X was decided wrong, and here's why." Quite frankly, I've long forgotten everything I learned regarding constitutional law or criminal procedure, and, as I have no interest or time to read law review articles or 700-page books, I'd welcome the opportunity to read a short, four-sentence blurb on what a case stood for and why you think it was in error. As is, I don't understand three quarters of what you write, because I don't have any context, and I haven't the time nor the energy to research it myself. Not to mention an overly-cynical view of the way Washington operates right now. Just something to think about in the future. Best, Dumpy </div> It would seem that we have a stylistic disjunct then. Though I should mention that I generally don't have the energy to fill in all the context myself, unless it's an area that I'm actually specializing in. In those areas, I actually get paid to read and absorb as much as humanly possible (talk about a dream job for me). This, again, is not quite one of them, except indirectly as it pertains to the Court's ideological makeup or in historical context. The cynicism part I can agree with categorically. </div> enjoy it while you can. once you have kids, the ability to read and absorb quickly dissipates.
Even if this case was somehow granted Certiorari, it wouldn't be a good result. The majority five who decided Kelo are all still on the court. (Coincidentially, they are also the five that just ruled in Boumediene) But as I have said before, the court makeup could change in the next four years with John McCain elected President.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 24 2008, 09:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I honestly didn't know about this issue. Very very interesting. The fascist claim made me laugh though. If anything, supporting complete disregard for market values is closer to fascism (not that anyone's remotely close to such an extreme level).</div> Seriously. Naive are those who think that the state won't abuse this power.
<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.
