Sotomayor Hearings Live Blog 3

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:09:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Afternoon session starts. Grassley up. Interested in property rights and the Takings clause. Asks about Kelo. Sotomayor responds by saying she thinks property rights are important constitutional questions. Waves the American flag. Says the issue in Kelo was the amount of deference to be granted to state and local government's decision on what constitutes public purpose and use, and could such a determination allow for private development. She segues to a case she decided where she ruled in favor of a property owners procedural rights.

BTW, Kelo was properly decided. Sotomayor answered that Kelo followed existing SCOTUS precedent. Grassley argues Kelo was an "expansion" of the takings power. (Grassley is wrong). Sotomayor ducks the question.

More later.

Grassley asks about Didden. That's the case where the property owner did not sue within the statute of limitations period. Apparently Grassley wanted the SOL ignored.

Sotomayor responds by explaining the statute of limitations to Grassley. BTW, I wonder that Grassley was not concerned about the SOL when it involved Lily Ledbetter.

Feingold now. Rightly praises Sotomayor's discussion with Grassley. She did quite well no question.

Now to the hard stuff. Executive power. Sotomayor speaking like a politician on the issue. Politic but not what I want to hear. Let's see what Feingold says.

Would Soyomayor recuse herself from a 2nd Amendment incorporation case? If her case, Maloney, came up, then obviously yes. What about a different case? Not so clear.

Kyl is taking a dive. Pretty interesting.

< Sessions Treats White Male Nominees Differently Than Female Latina Nominees | Sotomayor Hearings Live Blog 4: Will Any GOP'er Vote For Sotomayor? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Sotomayor Hearings Live Blog 3 | 107 comments (107 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If they put up a monument to George Bush, THAT (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by steviez314 on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:37:56 PM EST

would be a statue of limitations.

At the Supreme Court level, there are multiple (5.00 / 2) (#62)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:14:06 PM EST

ways that a Justice can find a way to determine an issue on a basis not far from "it's just not right."

I don't want a Court that can't do that.

Kyl is really an @ss (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:20:45 PM EST

: How dare she celebrate differences! (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:23:15 PM EST

He should just host a talk radio show.

JC Christ (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by lilburro on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:33:14 PM EST

We don't only need a more diverse bench, we need a more diverse Senate. At least Sotomayor retaliates by quoting Alito.

This is actually good (5.00 / 0) (#84)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:34:25 PM EST

for Sotomayor and Democrats.

Hope they keep it up.


Nice job Leahy! (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:36:03 PM EST

Whole Alito quote is now in the record.


She is doing a good job (5.00 / 2) (#88)
by lilburro on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:39:47 PM EST

and the Alito quote was great. But I still do not understand why Republicans are unable to process diversity. Is it really that impossible to analyze race and gender issues?


: I want a Supreme Court filled (none / 0) (#89)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:45:44 PM EST

with judges who understand the law, the constitution, and know what it means to be fair and unbiased. Don't care if they are all the same race, gender, religion, and age. They need to be the best people possible for protecting our constitutional rights.
Thought the exchange with Feingold was just a bit too full of "you are a great lawyer", "and, you're a great judge" compliments. Mutual admiration can be done after the hearings rather than take up time where serious questions need to be.

The Senate can't really be made more diverse (none / 0) (#82)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:33:46 PM EST

It needs to be abolished.


: andgarden: abolitionist (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:30:55 PM EST

Yep (none / 0) (#83)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:34:14 PM EST

BAM! On Sonya's part. Nice job quoting Alito.


I know (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by lilburro on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:04:51 PM EST

that framing Sotomayor as empathetic and her comments in her speeches were inviting this focus, slightly. But the amount of time the concept of "empathy" and the importance of racial diversity are taking up is now at the point where it's simply offensive. Would they be painstakingly asking a white male about empathy all day long? No.

Which Repubs are up after Schumer? (none / 0) (#96)
by nycstray on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:09:41 PM EST

Lindsey Graham - ugh. (5.00 / 0) (#99)
by Anne on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:30:22 PM EST

Cannot stand the man. Hate his "gotcha" style of questioning, and I especially do not like the way he is treating Sotomayor.

As I said...ugh.


: It's close enough to 5PM for me (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by nycstray on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:34:05 PM EST

I'm going to use the rest of his time to make lemonade and spike it*. Dbl spike it now that he brought up her "temperament"! Gawd that p!sses me off!!
* I have a drinking problem,it's called listening to Republicans, lol!~

More protestors (none / 0) (#1)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:13:13 PM EST

did you know Sotomayor is a "baby killer"? That's what the protestor was saying. Funny -I thought she was a judge...

I sure hope those protestors are correct (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:17:34 PM EST

the Judge Sotomayor supports a woman's right to choose.


It's just weird (none / 0) (#3)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:18:34 PM EST

The protestor started his rant when she was answering a question on property rights.


: I thought the protestor (none / 0) (#104)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:14:04 PM EST

was hollaring at the Senators, but Ms. "Roe" did say she was there yesterday to block Sotomayor's appt. They must have all decided that anyone a D POTUS would nominate would have to be pro-choice.

In the scotus liveblog (none / 0) (#6)
by lilburro on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:20:51 PM EST

Tom Goldstein suggests "SS has, I think, shown her hand a touch on both race and abortion, erasing any suggestion she wouldn't be with the left on both."

I don't really know what to think, because her stock answer seems to be "settled law" so who knows.


I am pretty confident of her views (5.00 / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:21:30 PM EST

I was disturbed by her apparent defense (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:23:06 PM EST

of Carhart II. Other means available etc.


I saw it as a clever (5.00 / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:24:30 PM EST

attack on Carhart II, limiting it to its specific facts and arguing that the prior precedents are still valid.


: Depends entirely on what she actually believes (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:25:31 PM EST

Which I don't think we know.

"Pretty Confident" shouldn't (none / 0) (#19)
by dk on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:25:09 PM EST

be good enough for a senator who has to vote on the issue, though (IMHO).


Agreed (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:26:58 PM EST

You know me. I want explicit answers and think the Senate has a right to them.

But no one agrees with me.


I do. (none / 0) (#28)
by dk on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:29:04 PM EST

I think I'll spend the rest of the week hoping that Al Franken passes his first test as a true liberal in the Senate and announces that he refuses to vote for her unless she directly answers these questions. Let the Al Franken decade begin!


: Yes, I sure am with you on this, (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by KeysDan on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:07:23 PM EST

however, I am do not want to set myself up for a fall. After all, I do recall Al saying, during his Air America days, that he originally supported the Iraq war (which is one thing), but that he was persuaded most of all by the testimony of Colin Powell (which is quite another thing).

A majority of women (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:01:01 PM EST

in this country favor a woman's right to choose... how does this become a "left" position?


Maybe Because (none / 0) (#97)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:12:24 PM EST

A greater majority of those on the left believe that a woman has a right to choose.

Could just be about numbers, that would be my guess.

2003 poll:

Women 37% for 24% against

Democrats 43% for 21% against

And the "left" was not polled but if they were my guess would be:

The Left: 100% for 0% against


: I believe there are polls (none / 0) (#110)
by BackFromOhio on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 01:58:17 PM EST

out there showing stronger support. Response so depends on how the issue and questions are framed.

listening to her (none / 0) (#7)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:21:12 PM EST

I find anything else hard to imagine.


Good opportunity to remind everyone (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by lobary on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:39:59 PM EST

of an underreported fact: Dr. Tiller was killed just five days after Obama nominated Sotomayor. The first time an anti-choice crazy shot him happened just days after Justice Ginsburg was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1993.


Judge Sotomayor has a detailed (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:19:02 PM EST

memory of the facts of her previous judicial work. Impressive.

I would probably need to work from notes (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:20:23 PM EST

at this level of detail.


: I would need someone to remind (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by nycstray on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:24:25 PM EST

me what I worked on, so I could refresh my memory, lol!~

Sotomayor is quite bright (5.00 / 0) (#42)
by MKS on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:39:40 PM EST

She will be fine during the hearings....She will perhaps be very, very good on the Supreme Court.


I would be getting frustrated with Grassley, (none / 0) (#9)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:21:40 PM EST

I think,

Nah (5.00 / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:22:36 PM EST

I think she is in her element here. She is good at this type of technical thinking.


Kelo did not control the outcome (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:23:22 PM EST

See? She is explaining dicta to Grassley now.


And (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:24:15 PM EST

the concept of statute of limitations.

But, he's not a lawyer either...


Are the hearings always like this? (none / 0) (#26)
by lilburro on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:28:46 PM EST

It seems like a lot of this so far has been educating Senators on things they should know.

I am interested in what Feingold will say, presumably he will address Gitmo and other civil liberties issues...


: They probably know these things (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:32:02 PM EST

they just don't like them. would rather the supreme court ignored SOL or settled law to come to the conclusions they favor. it's almost like grassley wants the judiciary to be active in some way ....

My comment disappeared (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:24:35 PM EST

but I write that it's clear to me that she has no temperament problem, contrary to some anonymous claims.


The way she tolerated Sessions earned (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by byteb on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:35:46 PM EST

her my virtual Standing Ovation.


sessions is so annoying (5.00 / 2) (#51)
by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:55:49 PM EST

even if he were a liberal he would annoy me.
the only person who sounds more than and effeminate snidely whiplash is Orin Hatch.


: sigh (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:57:35 PM EST

more like an effeminate .......
preview preview, Teresa

: Snidley had (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:32:30 PM EST

a much better vocabulary.
and was probably smarter.

Didn't you know all women (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:02:41 PM EST

are subject to temperament problems from certain perspectives? {SNARK)


Well, what is her flash point? Very well (none / 0) (#22)
by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:25:38 PM EST

controlled, I agree. I couldn't do that either!


: I liked the way DiFi (none / 0) (#29)
by nycstray on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:30:00 PM EST

addressed it, lol!~

Who knows? (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:26:14 PM EST

What the hell is a "temperament problem" anyway?


I think it's pretty clear what it meant (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:27:52 PM EST

to those commenters.


It's a problem we women have (5.00 / 6) (#27)
by nycstray on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:29:02 PM EST

sometimes it's a general problem (no testing needed, assumption works fine!), other times it shows up "periodically" . . .


When we're feeling down. (5.00 / 5) (#30)
by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:30:55 PM EST

{sharpens claws} (5.00 / 3) (#35)
by nycstray on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:34:37 PM EST

Exposed nerve. (5.00 / 4) (#44)
by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:41:29 PM EST

Well, we know what to do about that (5.00 / 1) (#101)
by Cream City on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:34:57 PM EST

now, don't we? We just have to go seek the good advice of our husbands and ministers. . . .

Golly, but I love you two, oculus and nycstray, for your long memories of those words of wisdom from our Great Leader. :-)


: I bet you haven't forgotten either. (none / 0) (#102)
by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:22:41 PM EST

I thought (none / 0) (#33)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:32:38 PM EST

it was a problem that white men don't suffer, but you know, "wise Latina women" might not be able to control....?

<snark>


Senator, I know you an Iowa farmer, but (none / 0) (#14)
by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:23:57 PM EST

have you ever heard of statute of limitations?


: He's an embarrssment... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:55:57 PM EST

...to both farmers and Iowans.

Didden is an interesting case (none / 0) (#13)
by Steve M on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:23:36 PM EST

The critics claim that the plaintiff's property was condemned because he refused to pay an extortionate bribe to the town's appointed developer.

The facts of the case are quite different. In reality, the town approved a redevelopment plan that included the plaintiff's property as well as many others. The plaintiff voluntarily initiated negotiations with the town in an effort to avoid the condemnation. After four years of voluntary, and apparently quite amicable, negotiation, the plaintiff decided he wasn't being offered a good enough deal so he filed a lawsuit and claimed he was being extorted - when he was the one who initiated negotiations in the first place!

But facts are complicated. Spin is easy.

SoL (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:25:36 PM EST

is pretty easy. Hell, conservatives understood it very well in Ledbetter.


Kinda sorta (none / 0) (#46)
by Steve M on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:49:06 PM EST

the theory of the critics is that since the "extortion" didn't happen until after the fact, it's not fair to say that he should have sued earlier.

The point is that the "extortion" claim is nonsensical and was properly disregarded by the District Court and the Court of Appeals. If the original finding of public purpose for the condemnation was correct - and it's way too late for the plaintiff to challenge it now - you can't get around that by saying wait, the taking has now become pretextual based upon the conduct of negotiations that I myself chose to initiate.


He could have sued for extortion (none / 0) (#48)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:51:05 PM EST

not for the taking.

That was Sotomayor's point.

Pretty clear.


Well (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Steve M on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:20:20 PM EST

I could envision a case where a municipality condemns your property as nothing more than a shakedown scheme, and you'd be able to challenge the taking as pretextual even under Kelo. But I agree with Sotomayor that this was obviously not that case, no matter how much the critics try to portray it as such.

As we discuss this, keep in mind that I am about the only person in the blogosphere who agrees with you on Kelo!


I agree with you (none / 0) (#73)
by MKS on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:24:34 PM EST

Redevelopment projects happen all the time....I agree that they are largely for the public good.

And, the decision to exercise the right to take is a local one--decided by the town or city itself in most intances....Local control will tend to avoid abuse....Most cities are loathe to condemn property because it is such a political nightmare to do so.


: Yes (none / 0) (#87)
by Steve M on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:39:08 PM EST

The holding of Kelo that no one talks about is that land use and zoning matters have always been viewed as the quintessential local issues. States are free to have broad eminent domain powers, limited powers, or no powers at all as they choose. And the sort of government action that may be appropriate in a given locality may be entirely inappropriate somewhere else.
One of these days, a case will come along where the federal courts will say "this is too outrageous an abuse of the eminent domain power, we find it to be a federal constitutional violation." Kelo expressly leaves the door open for that to occur, but Kelo was not the exceptional case. Nor was Didden.

Fox news says Sotomayor sd. (none / 0) (#31)
by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:31:53 PM EST

Eelo decided on basis of S/L.

Feingold on executive power! (none / 0) (#34)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:33:21 PM EST

He is adamant about TV at SCOTUS. (none / 0) (#37)
by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:35:58 PM EST

I happen to agree with him (none / 0) (#38)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:37:05 PM EST

Why SHOULDN'T the people be allowed to watch our Supreme Court in action?


Another venue for the protestors to (none / 0) (#39)
by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:37:51 PM EST

be removed from on camera.


: Fair point (none / 0) (#41)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:39:13 PM EST

But that shouldn't stop us from having them. It works in the federal circuit.

Feingold (none / 0) (#45)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:43:42 PM EST

Is this now the Bybee memo he's talking about?

I believe (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by Steve M on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:49:47 PM EST

that it was the Yoo memo that famously omitted any discussion of Youngstown.


: It omitted more than that (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:52:29 PM EST

like actual legal analysis.

: Unreal (none / 0) (#49)
by MKS on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:51:15 PM EST

Funny how she's willing to say that Korematsu (none / 0) (#54)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:02:40 PM EST

was incorrectly decided. What decides when a nominee in a hearing is willing to say such a thing? Lack of controversy, I would imagine. And I think that puts the lie to the idea that nominees don't talk about issues that might come before them.

Dred Scott (none / 0) (#55)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:05:23 PM EST

was wrongly decided.

Brown was correctly decided.

Constitutional Canon, as Bruce Ackerman refers to it.


: But it's all based on policy, not, in the case (none / 0) (#58)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:09:07 PM EST

of Korematsu, precedent.

I think even Jackson blew it on Korematsu (none / 0) (#64)
by MKS on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:18:23 PM EST

Terrible...


Feingold agrees with Jeralyn on 2nd Amendment (none / 0) (#57)
by MKS on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:08:16 PM EST

I just can never see the Second Amendment as anything other than a collective right...

Hello! Why is Kyl pushing for recusal? (none / 0) (#59)
by byteb on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:09:27 PM EST

He wants to make it more likely (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:10:27 PM EST

that the 2nd will be incorporated. He doesn't think that she's a vote for that.


What was the argument (none / 0) (#70)
by Steve M on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:22:15 PM EST

for recusal? I was doing real work and missed his point.


: Sotomayor (none / 0) (#76)
by MKS on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:30:08 PM EST

decided a second circuit case on incorporation of the Second Amendment. She agreed that she would recuse herself if that case came before Supreme Court.
The issue is would she recuse herself on other incorpration cases. She said she would consult her colleagues. Kyl asked about a situation in which the Supreme Court were to grant cert on all circuit cases on incorpration, including the Second Circuit case, so that they would all be heard simultaneously. She said she would consult her colleagues.

Kyl is grating on this. (none / 0) (#61)
by Tony on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:12:14 PM EST

Funny, the mild-mannered Tom Goldstein just referred to him as "pathologically clueless" on this matter

Kyl is being very polite (none / 0) (#63)
by MKS on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:15:46 PM EST

He has to be, coming from Arizona....

Maybe he would vote for her now--even though he didn't when she was up for confirmation to the Second Circuit.

His words are polite (5.00 / 0) (#68)
by Steve M on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:21:50 PM EST

but he seems to be yelling most of the time. Very harsh demeanor.


And he took his coat off (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:22:39 PM EST

What does Andy Card think?


: Demeanor (none / 0) (#85)
by MKS on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:35:08 PM EST

Kyl without jacket, now getting huffy and flailing about wise latina comment.....Versus Sotomayor--steady, calm, clear.

Never mind (none / 0) (#66)
by MKS on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:20:40 PM EST

Kyl harps on wise latina comment....


Pretty ineffectively I think (none / 0) (#69)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:21:58 PM EST

Either he is not very good or he is taking a dive.


: Sotomayor had a good crisp response (none / 0) (#78)
by MKS on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:31:09 PM EST

of look at my record.

: And, I think a wise latina (none / 0) (#81)
by MKS on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:33:19 PM EST

would make a better decision than these Republicans.

Kyl speaks without ending... (none / 0) (#74)
by byteb on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:24:47 PM EST

and it's all gibberish.

: he is the guy (none / 0) (#77)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:30:16 PM EST

who said something about how the president and vice president ARE responsible for protecting us when asked about Cheneys secret CIA assassination program on one of the sunday shows isnt he?
I dont understand how he gets people to take him so seriously.

oh, give it a rest already (none / 0) (#75)
by byteb on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:29:02 PM EST

all the furrowed brows and all the angst. they are idiots.

Is it your impression (none / 0) (#91)
by Steve M on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:56:11 PM EST

that the development you reference would not have been legally permissible prior to Kelo? Because I think you're flat wrong about that. The law already permitted this sort of taking, Kelo just declined to overturn the relevant precedents.

The Kelo dissent was remarkably disingenuous in taking a state of affairs that had existed for many decades, and characterizing it as a sudden shift in the law which permitted local governments to seize property willy-nilly for private benefit. Lots of well-meaning people, understandably concerned about their private property rights, fell for it hook, line and sinker.

: My point was (none / 0) (#107)
by Steve M on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 12:26:15 AM EST

Kelo did not change the law, full stop.

Colloquy with Schumer is good (none / 0) (#95)
by MKS on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:08:58 PM EST

Schumer asks softball, emotionally charged questions.....Sotomayor answers in calm, careful, even and rational tone, showing that she is not swayed by emotion ....

And the City Council (none / 0) (#98)
by MKS on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:13:14 PM EST

just knuckled under to Trump.....

Aren't there numerous voters who do not want more Waikiki development? There should be a natural political check on such takings....

I love Waikiki (none / 0) (#108)
by MKS on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 01:23:01 PM EST

The tendy view here in So Cal is to bash Waikiki as too full of tourists and to tout Kona and Kauai.

I love Honolulu. And I love no place more than Orchids....


: trendy (none / 0) (#109)
by MKS on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 01:28:54 PM EST