gay incest gay boy gay hunks gay hunks gay fuck gay black men gay teens gay …

George Washington was a surveyor, farmer and soldier who became the first president of the United States of America. After commanding the colonial forces in the Revolutionary War, he retired to his farm in 1783. A popular general in the war, in 1789 W…

I continue not to understand how this oft-floated idea can be correct. Kennedy joined Stevens’s opinion, so Stevens got five votes. Kennedy got one vote (his own). End of story. If Kennedy wanted his rationale to be controlling, he shouldn’t have joined Stevens; instead, he should have concurred only in the judgment. Powell, in Bakke (for example), controlled the Court’s judgment because he didn’t join anyone else’s opinion, and no one else got 5 votes. (Indeed, Stevens’s opinion in that case notes at n.1 that “It is hardly necessary to state that only a majority can speak for the Court or determine what is the ‘central meaning’ of any judgment of the Court.”) Undoubtedly, Kennedy’s opinion gives litigators rhetorical ammunition, but I do not see how it has any legal effect whatsoever. If I am wrong about this, I wish someone would explain why.

The story is told of the elderly judge who, looking back over a long career, observes with satisfaction that, “when I was young, I probably let stand some convictions that should have been overturned, and when I was old I probably set aside some that should have stood; so overall, justice was done.” I sometimes think that is an appropriate analog to this Court’s constitutional jurisprudence, which alternately creates rights that the Constitution does not contain and denies rights that it does. Compare Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (right to abortion does exist) with Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (right to be confronted with witnesses, U.S. Const., Amdt. 6, does not).

SIGN THIS PETITION:

http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html

The labyrinth of bureaucracy can conceal innumerable injustices. And there is very little recourse in the courts with the SCOTUS decision offering a shield of legal precedent. What is afterall the nature of “public use?” By the time you litigate t…

The US Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London is viewed as a set back for private property owners nationwide. The decision gives the green light for cities and states to make the claim that economic development to revitiliize…

It’s a sad day for America. The US Supreme Court severely restricted the property rights of ordinary citizens in its decision in the Kelo v. New London case:

Here in “Catoland,” as the Nashville Scene’s Bruce Barry calls it (which I take as a compliment, but I’m not sure he meant it as one), I personally feel that private ownership of property is one of the cornerstones of…

Apparently, only 4 1/2 of the Supreme Court Justices are smoking crack….

It’s gone too far – as you can read on SCOTUS blog, the recent 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court in “Kelo v. New London” holds that local government can seize private property for PRIVATE development, even against the owner’s will. Eminent Domain for …