Speakeasy forum

General discussion

A Molly Ivins article we may just agree on.

by Ziks511 / July 11, 2005 5:04 AM PDT

"As one who cares a whale of a lot more about personal rights than property rights, let me leap right into the fray over a Supreme Court decision on the side of the property rights advocates, many of whom I normally consider nutballs. But at least they're more in touch with reality than a majority of the Supreme Court.

"The justice who nailed this one was Sandra Day O'Connor, bless her. She wrote in dissent: "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result." "


Seems to coincide with the majority opinion here, and certainly agrees with mine.

Shame Justice O'Connor is retiring. She seemed to make sense.


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: A Molly Ivins article we may just agree on.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: A Molly Ivins article we may just agree on.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Link issue...
by dirtyrich / July 11, 2005 5:57 AM PDT

Seem to be getting her July 4th article...and her recent one doesn't seem to be listed online.
I happened to have glanced at her article this morning; I usually read her but my alarm didn't function too well this morning. As for the gist of her article, I wholeheartedly agree that the Supreme Court just blatantly violated one of the primary principles of the Constitution.

Collapse -
What are the odds
by duckman / July 11, 2005 7:13 AM PDT

that Sandra will un-retire if Renquist retires and GW appoints her as Chief?

Collapse -
Very nice, but...
by EdH / July 11, 2005 7:34 AM PDT

what Molly (and most liberals)doesn't get, and this is probably the source of her usual incorrectness is that personal rights and property rights are one and the same. You can't logically favor one over the other.

Collapse -
I agree with a proviso. Property rights are a sub-set of
by Ziks511 / July 11, 2005 8:31 AM PDT
In reply to: Very nice, but...

Personal rights and as a sub-set should not trump the thing of which they are only a part.

She is correct in the suggestion that it tilts the field in favor of the biggest bucks, though. Eminent domain used to be a controversial thing when exercised by government. This seems to extend that ability to corporations, and will limit the ability of the homeowner to reach a settlement based on market value, in my opinion.


Collapse -
The problem with O'Connor ...
by Evie / July 12, 2005 10:52 PM PDT

... was her inconsistency. Sometimes she stuck to the Constitution, other times not. There was no telling which standard she would apply to which issue at any given point in time.

Collapse -
I don't think that was necessarily bad...
by dirtyrich / July 13, 2005 2:11 AM PDT

A Supreme Court judge should be able to decide the true value of individual parts of our Constitution. There is a lot of variety among the Amendments in particular, some are surprisingly detailed while others are broad. Some address the basic principles of our nation and why it was founded, while others apply to causes or ideals of a specific generation.
I would much prefer a SC that is neither bound by strict interpretation or the "living document" concept, but instead would use common sense and wisdom. It's hard to quantify those concepts, but I think once you fall into one of the two stereotypes, common sense and wisdom are inherently precluded.

Collapse -
by Evie / July 13, 2005 3:06 AM PDT

The role of a justice is NOT to decide which parts of the Constitution to follow, and which parts can be ignored! Her "expiration date" in her opinion in the recent Affirmative Action case is a classic example of this. Basically she said that Government CAN discriminate on the basis of race for a little while longer (25 years -- decided how???) when there was no other Constitutional competing provision to allow for this Sad

There is a place for evolving standards of decency, etc. It's called the democratic legislative process. Our Constitution is NOT a living document. There are provisions to amend it as needed. The inability to pass laws due to politics is not an excuse to circumvent the process.

Evie Happy

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?