The hypocrisy of SCOTUS - specifically Thomas and Scalia

[pdxmom]

In 2005, SCOTUS ruled on the case of Kelo v. City of New London, which determined that a city could condemn private property virtually at will, for private corporation use. In this case, Thomas and Scalia were part of the dissenting opinion, which said, in part, that the majority had tilted in favor of those with "disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

After yesterday's ruling, I want Thomas and Scalia to be held accountable and explain how their view in 2005 squares with their opinion yesterday.

[jasi2006]

1. Good point. How do you ask them? Keith O, maybe? nt

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

2. It is true that it was the Liberal justices who got that one wrong

I can never forgive them. They threw private property rights out the window.

[rhett o rick]

4. Proves they werent "liberal" justices. nt

[pdxmom]

5. I was stunned at that ruling at the time, as well. This one from

yesterday is even worse.

[Raster]

3. You want Fat Tony and Clarence the Perv to "be held accountable"?

:rofl:

[pdxmom]

6. I can dream, can't I? N/T

[Kablooie]

7. The SCOTUS can be as hypocritical as they want to. No one can do anything about it.

They don't have to live up to any standards at all.

Whatever they say is law, period, no matter how self serving or damaging.

The only balancing factor is the opinion of the other judges. That's it.

[patrice]

8. It doesn't matter. These are relativists who claim absolute personal ownership of the

semantic and cognitive processes that make interpretation of the letter of the law possible in the first place.

Whatever other interpretation anyone can bring will be countered with their PERSONAL interpretations and the basic facts about language that make ***ANY*** interpretation possible are treated as though they make only one interpretation possible, THEIRS.

They are RELATIVISTS, just like many of the rest of us, except that they lie to us by pretending to be Absolutists, when there are no absolutes (no human absolutes anyway).