Sen. Grassley (R-IA) Questions Sonia Sotomayor

TreesOfLife said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLl6Kju6cQ0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnews%2Egoogle%2Ecom%2Fnwshp%3Fhl%3Den%26tab%3Dwn&feature=player_embedded

at about 18 Grassley asks a question in which this WITCH says the government can take your property and give it away...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMD6cGXcCDU&feature=related

Click to expand...

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London generated a backlash on both sides of the political spectrum..... Many of the rear-guard defenders of this ill-conceived decision insisted that abusive condemnations are an aberration in an otherwise sound planning process. They, it turns out, were wrong. Didden v. Village of Port Chester, a most unfortunate decision out of the 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, helps demonstrate the shortcomings of their optimistic view. In 1999, the village of Port Chester, N.Y., established a "redevelopment area" and gave its designated developer, Gregg Wasser, a virtual blank check to condemn property within it. In 2003, property owners Bart Didden and Dominick Bologna approached Wasser for permission to build a CVS pharmacy on land they own inside the zone. His response: Either pay me $800,000 or give me a 50% partnership interest in the CVS project. Wasser threatened to have the local government condemn the land if his demands weren't met. When the owners refused to oblige, their property was condemned the next day.
Didden and Bologna challenged the condemnation in federal court, on the grounds that it was not for a "public use," as the Fifth Amendment requires. Their view, quite simply, was that out-and-out extortion does not qualify as a public use. Nonetheless, the 2d Circuit . . . upheld this flexing of political muscle.

Click to expand...

TheBrutalTruth said:

How the hell did she become a judge?

Though I completely disagree with her opinion on the Diden case, just because the state had a contract with a private developer does not mean that the state can ignore property law and confiscate some one's property. It does not, and should not, matter what usage the state has planned, because the exact Constitutional Requirement is that the owner be given fair compensation for their property.

Though, apparently in the Didden case there were two businesses (going concerns) on the property, and thus the property was being used for "public" benefit. It was providing employment.

http://volokh.com/posts/1245113908.shtml
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1243364120.shtml



Though, based on further text written by the author, it is clear that Sotomayor is incapable of thinking for herself, and applied precedent established by the supreme court incorrectly.

As there is no way to remove a judge (except for death, or disabilitation) then it is hard to believe that any one like Sotomayor should be allowed near the supreme court, just on the record of that one case. While precedent is important in judicial cases, it should not be the end all, be all that Sotomayor is clearly attempting to make it into. That is, the Judicial Branch should not be legislating.

Click to expand...