.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Rantings of a Sandmonkey

Be forewarned: The writer of this blog is an extremely cynical, snarky, pro-US, secular, libertarian, disgruntled sandmonkey. If this is your cup of tea, please enjoy your stay here. If not, please sod off

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

What's wrong with the Supreme court?

The US supreme court has been acting really weird: They have been passing all kinds of messed up rulings lately. I mean, first, they agree (5-4) to almost abolish the right for Private property and give the states unprecedented rights to take people's property away if it serves the economic public good by placing a Wallmart in the place of your house . This, of course, is messed up. It takes the right of eminent domain to the extreme and will most likely screw over poor people. (In an interesting sidenote, You know who opposed it? O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. You know, the more right-leaning conservative ones appointed by the Big Business Republicans. But remember, it's the democrats who are looking out for the little guy, ok?) And if that ruling wasn't stupid enough, they have now passed a ruling that OK's having Religious symbols on government buildings as long as it has been there for Years with no objections: To the extent that the decisions provided guidelines for the further cases that are all but certain to follow, it appeared to be that religious symbols that have been on display for many years, with little controversy, are likely to be upheld, while newer displays intended to advance a modern religious agenda will be met with suspicion and disfavor from the court. So the old ones are fine, it's the new ones that are bad? Hmm, Behold the art of pleasing everyone! Ok, i have some questions: How do you decide what's little controversy? Doesn't that encourage people who are opposed to religious symbols to make as much controversy about them as possible? And how do you tell if the new display is intended to advance a modern religious agenda? And what's a modern religious agenda exactly? How does it differ from an old religious agenda? Does anybody know? Look, either ban it or allow it, but don't try to reach a compromise, because neither side is interested in one really, and by this ruling you are just pissing them off. You guys are the supreme court for God's sake. Stop being stupid!


At 6/28/2005 06:33:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


By the way, it's 'eminent' domain not 'immenient' domain, :-)

Yes, many if us in the US are scratching our heads over the recent Supreme Court decisions. HOwever, states can still enact their own laws against eminent domain.

Supreme Court decisions are usually made for a very narrow set of circumstances. Another similar case may come up and the court could rule differently.

There have been attempts by civil liberties groups to tear down 100-year old crosses in public parks and similar situations. Some have succeeded and some have not. It's almost always the civil rights groups bringing suit. Rarely does a non-Christian sue because he was offended by some antique Christian symbol in a public place. Secular fanaticism is just as bad as religious fanaticism.

In my opinion, the ten commandments are very appropriate for a courtroom. For Western civilization, they have historical and cultural significance as one of the most ancient set of laws. However, a statue of Jesus Christ does not belong there under any circumstances.


At 6/28/2005 07:16:00 AM, Blogger The Sandmonkey said...

God damn it! But I spell checked!

Thanks Aliandra!

At 6/28/2005 09:22:00 AM, Blogger DaKruser said...

It was spelled correctly, just the wrong word.
I can't "Spell it out" anybetter than Aliandra did.
We appreciate your blog. Keep writing!

At 6/28/2005 09:59:00 AM, Blogger Gimme Back My Dog said...

Not to mention last week when they determined that growing a plant in your backyard for your own consumption is "interstate trade".

Three hundred million people and we can't find nine that can read and understand a simple document?

At 6/28/2005 10:40:00 AM, Anonymous nelson said...

Wow, I've had the same feelings about the supreme court lately. Especially the decisions regarding the eminent domain and interstate commerce. The federal government has gained too much power in relation to state governments, and local governments have gained too much power over citizens.

At 6/28/2005 12:24:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not a religion nut, but I hate that some people think that "Freedom of Religion" means "Freedom FROM Religion." The buildings are old as hell, and they reflect the mindset of the time. I may not be a religious freak but I hate to have accurate history trumped by the PC issue of the day.

I live in Richmond, Virginia. The home of the confederacy, yet the home of St. Johns church. This church is the spot where the "Give me liberty, or give me death" speach was uttered. Can you believe it? It's religious, but still a monument. TEAR IT DOWN!!! IT HAS THE 10 COMMANDMENTS IN IT!!! I DON'T CARE WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT CHURCH!!! WHAT IF MY KIDS READ THE COMMANDMENTS!!!

*kills self*

PS- Sandmonkey KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! If it weren't for you and BP, I would have absolutely no idea about Egyptian politics/issues/freedoms/etc

At 6/28/2005 10:35:00 PM, Anonymous John D K said...

Of course it's liberials who think the government should be able to give your stuff to somebody else: they're the ones who think government knows best what's good for you.

Oh, and growing stuff for your own consumption has been interstate trade for a long time: there was a case about a farmer growing wheat for his own use some years back.

The scariest phrase in the english language: "Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home