Private Homes may be taken for public good

[J.A. Terranson]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Steve Schear wrote:

> At 10:19 PM 6/23/2005, you wrote:
> >On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jay Listo wrote:
> >
> > > Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you
> > > know you've been Bush-whacked.
> >
> >Maybe you should take another look at who voted how.  The Bushies
> >dissented on this opinion.  Go figure.
>
> Not surprising at all.  The Bush camp's court agenda is spearheaded by
> members of the Federalist Society which wants to roll back many of the SC's
> decisions of the early-mid 20th century (esp. the Social Security Act and
> the expansion of the Commerce Clause during FDR's reign).

You're on crack.  They just expanded the Commerce Clause to it's logical
limits with the California medical maryjane case.  The Bushie agenda may
seem traditional reactionary on the surface, but look carefully and you;ll
see significant differences in modern neocon vs old family Nixon.

Shrub doesn't want Federalism, he wants full theocracy with a Federal
bent.

-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
sysadmin at mfn.org
0xBD4A95BF


"Never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public
plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to
the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always
be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by
predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty."

Joseph Pulitzer
1907 Speech