Wednesday, June 29, 2005
while trying madly to reach a million hits for our third blogiversary (yes! talkleft coined that phrase!) we stumbled upon a truly conservative blog called cynical nation .
now, by "truly" conservative, we don't mean way more conservative than lgf (that would be nigh impossible). no, we mean "conservative" in the literal, old school definition of the term: wanting to conserve (budget, environment, values); a real-life libertarian, not a wannabe who likes shouting for the sake of shouting.
cynical nation, when we visited, was still reeling over the kelo v. big corporate greed (sup.ct. 2005) decision, a ruling which, to be quite honest, we ourselves found to be both reprehensible and unsurprising.
reprehensible because, of course, it sets precedents for governments and corporations to
cynical nation points out that appointing administrations had little to do with the justices' individual views:
that's one reason i want to jettison this unofficial moratorium on "litmus tests." the next judicial nominee to appear before the senate needs to be grilled on the kelo case and grilled hard. if that comprises a litmus test, then so be it.
that's encouraging. we at skippy, while unabashed liberal, are even more in favor of everybody in the world making up their own minds on a case by case basis, ie, just because the guy in charge says he's from your party, don't expect him to operate in your favor. sometimes the left is right. sometimes the right is left.
we surfed through the right side of blogtopia (yes! we coined that phrase!) to find more folks stunned that the supreme court would favor money and politics over individual rights.
our good friend vodka pundit :
the localities are still required to pay "a just price" when one of these takings occurs, but the price even a willing seller would be able to get from his property just took a huge hit. all a developer has to do now is make a lowball offer and threaten to involve a bought-and-paid-for politician to take the property away if the owner doesn't acquiesce.
it certainly is. redstate gives a thoughtful point-by-point dissection of justice's decisions and how they pretty much throw private property rights out the window by being incredibly vague (redstate's analysis, while right on the money, is detailed, precise, and boring. forgive us for not quoting it).
whizbang comes to much the same conclusion about the court as cynical nation...ie, just 'cuz they're registered as a republicans don't mean they likes the constitution:
john paul stevens, appointed in 1975 by gerald ford. anthony m. kennedy, appointed in 1988 by ronald reagan. david h. souter, appointed in 1990 by george h. w. bush. ruth bader ginsburg, appointed in 1993 by william jefferson clinton. stephen g. breyer, appointed in 1994 by william jefferson clinton.
three of the five, appointed by republicans. it's slight consolation that the other four were put on the court by nixon, reagan, and bush.
and lest we forget daily pundit , who coined the phrase "blogosphere" (which is, of course, incorrect, because there is no shape to cyberspace; but, we digress), who thinks the supremes are simply out of touch:
but what is the left side of blogtopia (yes! we coined that phrase, and it's geometrically more correct!) saying?
well, le'ts let skippy start:
it sucks. big time. now any developer with a politician for a friend can take your home away (anyone remember how the ranger stadium got built ?)
but oddly enough, we had trouble finding lefties even talking about it, let alone disagreeing with the supremes. but over on dkos , though armando supports the decision, many, many commentors were abhorred:
much the same thing happened at poltical animal ...kevin drum thought the decision was no biggie, but his commentors were aghast, not only at the supremes, but kevin's attitude.
but when it comes to all things law, we go to our good friend talkleft , who quotes john wesley hall in a piece that pretty much sums up reality:
well, what can we say? corporate/government power is something we've been fighting since we were little 'roos in our mama's pouch. you can twist and spin the ins and outs of the decision all you want, but it comes down to the golden rule...whoever has the most gold makes the rules.
and nobody, regarding of whatever party they align themselves with, should be surprised when the fatcats use them as a litter box.