Support




Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
Powered by
Movable Type





SCOTUS Refuses To Consider Overturning A Takings Clause Case (CBD)

I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but it seems to me that limiting access to the federal court system in cases where the question is a clear Constitutional issue seems...odd.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes private property for public use. Yet in the 1985 case of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly undercut the protections from government abuse offered by that constitutional provision, holding that plaintiffs may not file a just compensation lawsuit in federal court until they have first exhausted their compensation claims in state court.

But the court declined to hear Arrigoni Enterprises, LLC v. Durham, a clear challenge to Williamson County, and Justices Thomas and Kennedy(!) were not pleased. Clarence Thomas Faults SCOTUS for Enabling Government Abuse and Undermining the 5th Amendment, and his logic seems unassailable.

In response to the Court's rejection of that petition, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, filed a pointed dissent, accusing the Court of undermining a core constitutional provision while simultaneously enabling government abuse of property rights. "Both the text of the Takings Clause and the historical evidence cast doubt on Williamson County," Thomas noted. According to Thomas, Arrigoni Enterprises offered a welcome opportunity "to consider whether there are any justifications for the ahistorical, atextual, and anomalous state-litigation rule, and if not, to overrule Williamson County."

The default position of the writers of the Constitution was that government power is dangerous and must be limited. The Takings Clause is one of those portions of the Amendments that seem never to be read, yet are obviously rather important. Ask every a few high school kids what the Fifth Amendment is, and they will tell you that it protects us against self incrimination. But Eminent Domain is a very big deal, as we learned to our dismay in Kelo v. City of New London. Is this SCOTUS consolidating its decision in Kelo, or just one more erosion of our rights?

This is one of the topics that pull me back to Reason. I like that they are immediately suspicious of any limitations on our rights. Yeah, they are mostly nuts, but maybe they are the canary in the coal mine?

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:34 PM




Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 Too much thinking required.

Posted by: Weasel at April 25, 2016 06:39 PM (e3bId)

2 Kennedy really shouldn't surprise you. On certain issues--business--he's very consistent.

Posted by: Unfettered Power at April 25, 2016 06:39 PM (mcm0N)

3 2nd!

Posted by: Weasel at April 25, 2016 06:40 PM (5ZRXN)

4 Damnit!

Posted by: Weasel at April 25, 2016 06:40 PM (5ZRXN)

5 As I understand it, all SCOTUS really said here was "state issue, don't bother us." ... right?

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at April 25, 2016 06:40 PM (AkOaV)

6 Goth Fonzie says ola.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at April 25, 2016 06:41 PM (k4M/B)

7 SCOTUS ruled in a State takings case here in SC over a beach setback law passed that prevented a developer from building on some beach front property her had bought. SCOTUS ruled in that case if the State took more than 5% of the value of the land then it was a "taking" and must be compensated. That case should apply here.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 25, 2016 06:41 PM (vvmPQ)

8 Threads are coming faster than I can post comments

Posted by: Skip at April 25, 2016 06:41 PM (Dpy/y)

9 As a refugee from CT, I'll let you in on a little secret -- CT sucks. This is par for the course.

If they really want to develop the land, they need to go full Donald Trump and start donating mega bucks to D politicians. Then they'll get their rock crushing variance.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at April 25, 2016 06:42 PM (AkOaV)

10
No Standing!

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 25, 2016 06:43 PM (ODxAs)

11 Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 25, 2016 06:41 PM (vvmPQ)

Should it, though?

I, admittedly, haven't read a ton on this case, but as I understand it, SCOTUS is just saying "deal with this in the CT State Courts first. This is a local zoning issue."

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at April 25, 2016 06:43 PM (AkOaV)

12 It's a tax!

Posted by: John "Obamacare" Roberts at April 25, 2016 06:44 PM (wUFzV)

13 An objective press might consider any case like this where Kennedy objects to be one which is so outrageous they can't even get Mr Waffles to go along on.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2016 06:45 PM (39g3+)

14 accusing the Court of undermining a core constitutional provision while simultaneously enabling government abuse of property rights.

seems like I was just arguing the continual undermining of people's rights by the courts in the last thread.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 25, 2016 06:46 PM (ODxAs)

15 Why is everyone at Reason nuts? Oh right they want to smoke pot and watch porn without the govt interfering. Fucking crazies I tell ya!!

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at April 25, 2016 06:47 PM (0LHZx)

16 In any case, the Supreme Court plainly and obviously demonstrated their invalidity and uselessness several years ago. All they're doing now is doubling down on it.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2016 06:47 PM (39g3+)

17 We should just wait for that ass movie Ace was talking about earlier.

Posted by: KIllerdog at April 25, 2016 06:47 PM (IQXW8)

18 Let's have a reporter ask Donald about this one.

In depth, ya know. He knows about the fifth. Comes after the fourth.

Posted by: the littl shyning man at April 25, 2016 06:47 PM (U6f54)

19 15 Why is everyone at Reason nuts? Oh right they want to smoke pot and watch porn without the govt interfering. Fucking crazies I tell ya!!
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at April 25, 2016 06:47 PM (0LHZx)

They have their moments.

I definitely like Goth Fonzi's interviews with people on reason.tv .

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at April 25, 2016 06:48 PM (AkOaV)

20
Why is everyone at Reason nuts? Oh right they want to smoke pot and watch porn without the govt interfering. Fucking crazies I tell ya!!
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo


And the open border.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at April 25, 2016 06:48 PM (k4M/B)

21 This is really nothing. They just kicked this case back to run out through the State Court system before bringing it to SCOTUS. The Petitioners tried to jump the Chain of Command in the State and did not exhaust all opportunities there.

Posted by: The Great White Scotsman at April 25, 2016 06:49 PM (iONHu)

22 16 In any case, the Supreme Court plainly and obviously demonstrated their invalidity and uselessness several years ago. All they're doing now is doubling down on it.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2016 06:47 PM (39g3+)

I mean, do we literally want to make federal cases out of every single zoning law in the country?

...Not that I agree with the majority here... I'm just saying I wish SCOTUS would say "state issue, fuck off" more often.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at April 25, 2016 06:49 PM (AkOaV)

23 I just read the State's disapproval of the "rock crushing" they needed to do build on the land, thus rendering it unusable. So the SC case law would apply for more than a 5% taking.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 25, 2016 06:49 PM (vvmPQ)

24 23 I just read the State's disapproval of the "rock crushing" they needed to do build on the land, thus rendering it unusable. So the SC case law would apply for more than a 5% taking.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 25, 2016 06:49 PM (vvmPQ)

devils advocate here:

So if I buy 50 acres of land in CT that is on wetlands and then apply for a permit to build a condo complex, and the town says "nope, can't build on wetlands." I should be able to sue for millions of lost revenues?

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at April 25, 2016 06:51 PM (AkOaV)

25 ...Not that I agree with the majority here... I'm just saying I wish SCOTUS would say "state issue, fuck off" more often.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at April 25, 2016 06:49 PM (AkOaV)

___

And said exactly like that...."state issue fuck off" instead of 100 page decision that says same.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at April 25, 2016 06:52 PM (0LHZx)

26 24 So if I buy 50 acres of land in CT that is on
wetlands and then apply for a permit to build a condo complex, and the
town says "nope, can't build on wetlands." I should be able to sue for
millions of lost revenues?

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at April 25, 2016 06:51 PM (AkOaV)

Not if the law was in effect at the time you bought the land. It applies when the State or Feds change a law while you own the property.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 25, 2016 06:52 PM (vvmPQ)

27 And said exactly like that...."state issue fuck off" instead of 100 page decision that says same.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at April 25, 2016 06:52 PM (0LHZx)

...well, it would save a lot of money / time / trees / electrons and be like Hammurabi's Code -- easily understood by even the most unlettered of the plebes.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at April 25, 2016 06:53 PM (AkOaV)

28 Harry, your example is somewhat odd...for lack of a better word. Any developer worth his salt would know that he couldn't build on wetlands because of EPA rules. It would be a battle that the developer knew that he couldn't win, even in the courts.

Posted by: Old Blue at April 25, 2016 06:54 PM (9iR5/)

29 Not if the law was in effect at the time you bought the land. It applies when the State or Feds change a law while you own the property.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 25, 2016 06:52 PM (vvmPQ)

So if my grandfather bought the land before they had industrial / commercial / residential zoning, I can sue for the millions in lost revenue from my bar / casino / strip club I wanted to build in the middle of what is now a sub development?

How about building codes? When I bought the land, there were little / no codes. Should I be able to sue for the cost of compliance with the 2016 building codes if the lands been deeded to me or my family for 100 years?

I'm just saying, it's not that simple.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at April 25, 2016 06:55 PM (AkOaV)

30 >>>>>>
23 I just read the State's disapproval of the "rock crushing" they
needed to do build on the land, thus rendering it unusable. So the SC
case law would apply for more than a 5% taking.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 25, 2016 06:49 PM (vvmPQ)



devils advocate here:



So if I buy 50 acres of land in CT that is on wetlands and then
apply for a permit to build a condo complex, and the town says "nope,
can't build on wetlands." I should be able to sue for millions of lost
revenues?
.
.
.
.I don't think the State would be the one telling you that you could not build on wetlands, it would be the Fed.

Posted by: The Great White Scotsman at April 25, 2016 06:56 PM (iONHu)

31 We need few felons on the Supreme Court so that it's more representative of America's diversity.

Posted by: Terry McAuliffe at April 25, 2016 06:57 PM (8ZskC)

32 28 Harry, your example is somewhat odd...for lack of a better word. Any developer worth his salt would know that he couldn't build on wetlands because of EPA rules. It would be a battle that the developer knew that he couldn't win, even in the courts.
Posted by: Old Blue at April 25, 2016 06:54 PM (9iR5/)

Ah, apparently you aren't familiar with the wetlands wars in CT.

The state has been constantly redefining what "wetlands" means to the point where anyone at an elevation anywhere near sea level is now in wetlands.

I think the current rule is that if the town digs down 12 inches and there is standing water after a few days, it's wetlands. Of course, it's totally arbitrary if that digging is done in the spring (when its rainy and "wet season") or fall.

Oh, and you (the homeowner) have to pay for the digging by a certified hole digger.

And you CAN get variances -- it's just entirely arbitrary. Grease enough palms -- you'll pass, even if you're in the middle of a swamp.

Look at someone in the zoning department and you will not get a permit even if you're on the top of a hill.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at April 25, 2016 06:58 PM (AkOaV)

33 look at someone wrong*

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at April 25, 2016 06:59 PM (AkOaV)

34 18 Let's have a reporter ask Donald about this one.

In depth, ya know. He knows about the fifth. Comes after the fourth.
Posted by: the littl shyning man at April 25, 2016 06:47 PM (U6f54)

Yeah. I read it in Amendment 5.

Posted by: Teh Donald at April 25, 2016 06:59 PM (48QDY)

35 Take my wife. Please!

Posted by: zombie Henny Youngmansorta zombie Bill Clinton at April 25, 2016 06:59 PM (H9MG5)

36
I would argue that if I bought commercial land 20 years ago with the intention to eventually build commercial on it and the county all of a sudden said no dice - new zoning, I would call that a taking.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 25, 2016 06:59 PM (ODxAs)

37 31 We need few felons on the Supreme Court so that it's more representative of America's diversity.
Posted by: Terry McAuliffe at April 25, 2016 06:57 PM (8ZskC)
------------------------------------
Oooooh! Pick me! Pick me! Pretty please!

Posted by: Chelsea Manning at April 25, 2016 06:59 PM (T/5A0)

38 Grease enough palms -- you'll pass, even if you're in the middle of a swamp.


Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them.

Posted by: The Swamp King at April 25, 2016 07:02 PM (8ZskC)

39 ...thats not even getting in to the redrawn federal FEMA flood maps post-Sandy.

People who have never so much as had water in their basement got reclassified as being in the middle of a horrible flood zone and can no longer put any additions on their houses (because their septic systems, which are rated for x number of bedrooms, and thus would require an upgrade plan on file if said septic system were to fail at some point, are now in the middle of a flood zone, even if it hasn't flooded since Noah's day.)

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at April 25, 2016 07:02 PM (AkOaV)

40 >>>>>Ah, apparently you aren't familiar with the wetlands wars in CT.



The state has been constantly redefining what "wetlands" means to
the point where anyone at an elevation anywhere near sea level is now in
wetlands.



I think the current rule is that if the town digs down 12 inches and
there is standing water after a few days, it's wetlands. Of course,
it's totally arbitrary if that digging is done in the spring (when its
rainy and "wet season") or fall.



Oh, and you (the homeowner) have to pay for the digging by a certified hole digger.



And you CAN get variances -- it's just entirely arbitrary. Grease
enough palms -- you'll pass, even if you're in the middle of a swamp.



Look at someone in the zoning department and you will not get a permit even if you're on the top of a hill.
.
.
.
Niantic has done that in the past and that is reason #238 why we fled Connecticut. But that is a State issue that needs to run completely through the State Court system and not try to jump to SCOTUS before all opportunities have been exhausted.

Posted by: The Great White Scotsman at April 25, 2016 07:03 PM (iONHu)

41 Posted by: The Swamp King at April 25, 2016 07:02 PM (8ZskC)

----------------

Yeah, and several of them sank into sId swamp. Also, your son is a fag.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at April 25, 2016 07:04 PM (kTF2Z)

42 Or their flood zone has been redifined.

$120 a year to $533.

But the mayor bragged to me that the city has been our savior. Could be worse.

Just after bragging that they/me just moved some folks out of a perennially flooded part of town and helped them relocate.

Posted by: Golfman at April 25, 2016 07:06 PM (48QDY)

43 This is the SC case I was referring to.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-453.ZO.html

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 25, 2016 07:06 PM (vvmPQ)

44 Niantic has done that in the past and that is reason #238 why we fled Connecticut. But that is a State issue that needs to run completely through the State Court system and not try to jump to SCOTUS before all opportunities have been exhausted.
Posted by: The Great White Scotsman at April 25, 2016 07:03 PM (iONHu)


I agree it should be a state issue. And I fled CT as well. I worked for a general contractor who did work in fairfield county, CT and Westchester Cty, NY (and further in to NY at times, and occasionally bergen cty nj) and I did a lot of the permit applications and such, so I was up close and personal with these absurd issues.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at April 25, 2016 07:09 PM (AkOaV)

45 I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but it seems to me that limiting access to the federal court system in cases where the question is a clear Constitutional issue seems...odd.

Not for our courts ... where a voter didn't have standing to challenge the eligibility of a political candidate (when it was the job of the SecStates to already establish eligibility before even letting anyone onto a ballot).

Our judiciary (and the states') are nothing but total jokes. Sick, sick jokes, with Benedict Roberts as the head ASS.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 25, 2016 07:11 PM (zc3Db)

46 TPOP break the blog?

Posted by: Golfman at April 25, 2016 07:18 PM (48QDY)

47 Yo!

Posted by: Yo! at April 25, 2016 07:19 PM (GwIKd)

48 TPOP break the blog?

Posted by: Golfman at April 25, 2016 07:18 PM (48QDY)


I just left people speechless, I guess.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 25, 2016 07:19 PM (zc3Db)

49 I strictly follow the taking commandment in Two Pepperonians.

Posted by: Teh Donald at April 25, 2016 07:21 PM (eHpnh)

50 I just left people speechless, I guess.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 25, 2016 07:19 PM (zc3Db)


Was hard to butt in.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster Bravely supporting kittens at April 25, 2016 07:21 PM (uURQL)

51 The Horde is silent in agreement for once.

Posted by: Golfman at April 25, 2016 07:22 PM (48QDY)

52 Yeah, I don't have much more to add.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at April 25, 2016 07:22 PM (AkOaV)

53 I want to see President Cruz if for no other reason than to see his appointees shoving throbbing logical dildoes up Dread Pirate Roberts' ass.

Posted by: JEM at April 25, 2016 07:23 PM (o+SC1)

54 Apt to see a number of attractive cases denied cert while there is a 4-4 split on the Court. Several of them will want to see which way the 5th will swing before voting to take a case.

Posted by: One-Eyed Cat Peeping in the Seafood Store at April 25, 2016 07:24 PM (aeVIR)

55
Take my wife. Please!
Posted by:sorta zombie Bill Clinton


Do we have a choice?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at April 25, 2016 07:24 PM (k4M/B)

56 So, time to drive offtopic to guns, bewbs, and pet pics?

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster Bravely supporting kittens at April 25, 2016 07:24 PM (uURQL)

57 So the government can change things on a whim and you lose your ass. Is it any wonder that businesses hedge their bets with donations to both sides? The whole thing stinks to high heaven, but there it is.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at April 25, 2016 07:25 PM (kTF2Z)

58 I want to thanl Presdent Obama for all his hard work to help all persons of color and you will be truly missed by us in Brattleboro. We will always love you and Micheal Obama and you be always welcome in our grate city. The loving people of Bratttleboro, VT.

Posted by: Mary Clogginstien from Brattleboro, VT at April 25, 2016 07:25 PM (NuElX)

59 I understand folks are down on Andrew Jackson these days, but one thing to keep in mind (if I understand the period like i think I do) is that he was, for all his faults, a guy solidly behind the idea that government can be a source of corruption, as far as picking financial favorites. This is why he hated he Second U.S. Bank, and internal improvements--it was government picking winners, vice letting the people fight it out themselves.

Yes, he did the spoils system, but it might have been as a "blowback" kind of thing--as a way for the people to solidly establish control, i.e., "personnel is policy". In these days of a civil service that is too often an auxiliary of the Democratic Party (National Park Service and IRS, looking at you), it is an idea that resonates.

Posted by: Hotspur at April 25, 2016 07:27 PM (J3UIw)

60 "Ah, apparently you aren't familiar with the wetlands wars in CT. The state has been constantly redefining what 'wetlands' means to
the point where anyone at an elevation anywhere near sea level is now in
wetlands. I think the current rule is that if the town digs down 12 inches and
there is standing water after a few days, it's wetlands. Of course,
it's totally arbitrary if that digging is done in the spring (when its
rainy and 'wet season') or fall."

At the federal level, wetlands and the various redefinitions thereof were a huge feature of the Poppy Bush administration.

Instead of pushing back against this gassy arbitrary vague word cloud where damn near any drizzle puddle can create a "wetland", instead, the Bushies tried to finesse the whole thing with nonsense such as no-net-loss (hearing that in Poppy's nasal preppy voice as I type it).

It was as successful as anything else from the Bush family, which is to say that it was an outright fiasco, and the echoes of that failure continue to this day.

Posted by: torquewrench at April 25, 2016 07:28 PM (noWW6)

61 Way to go Chief Justice Roberts, maybe Harriet Miers was SCOTUS material after all

Posted by: William Howard Taft at April 25, 2016 07:29 PM (12kBq)

62 People kept getting on the trains and believing(hoping) there was a shower at the end of the journey......this shit is getting real and give SCOTUS 2-3 more anti-American radicals and this blog will be taking a multi-generational vacation.

Posted by: Malignantly aggrieved and economically useless at April 25, 2016 07:29 PM (3ZttN)

63 Grilled chicken and veggies tonight. Just a touch heavy on the paprika seasoning, by otherwise pretty tasty.

Posted by: Weasel at April 25, 2016 07:30 PM (e3bId)

64 Brattleboro is 94.06% white, Mary.

Posted by: fluffy at April 25, 2016 07:31 PM (2hcmo)

65 Somehow I don't think that the founders thought that 7 robed judges should be the finite rulers of the country. But that's what we have.

Posted by: Skip at April 25, 2016 07:34 PM (Dpy/y)

66 That should be 8 now.not 7.

Posted by: Skip at April 25, 2016 07:35 PM (Dpy/y)

67 Sounds good, weasel. I'm starving.

Posted by: NCKate at April 25, 2016 07:35 PM (O46jc)

68 Posted by: Terry McAuliffe at April 25, 2016 06:57 PM (8ZskC)

------------------------------------

Oooooh! Pick me! Pick me! Pretty please!

Posted by: Chelsea Manning at April 25, 2016 06:59 PM (T/5A0)


F off Chelsea, I'm a lock.

Posted by: Huma at April 25, 2016 07:37 PM (cmE8J)

69 Posted by: Skip at April 25, 2016 07:34 PM (Dpy/y)
------------

Yep. They took the time to write it all down in a very easy to understand document. They also wrote extensively after the fact about what they intended. It took a couple hundred years for the country to realize that they wanted the Supreme Court to be a super legislature.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at April 25, 2016 07:42 PM (kTF2Z)

70 67 Sounds good, weasel. I'm starving.
Posted by: NCKate at April 25, 2016 07:35 PM (O46jc)
----------
Hop in the car and head north of the border about 4 hours.... There's some left!

Posted by: Weasel at April 25, 2016 07:42 PM (e3bId)

71 Just cooked some bacon and tossed some in the dog bowl with the regular dog-food. My dog absolutely loves me right now. Licking her lips, staring longingly at me in hopes I have more deliciousness for her.

Posted by: Lincolntf at April 25, 2016 07:43 PM (2cS/G)

72 Duke, well obviously. The least accountable branch of the govt. was surely where the founders intended ultimate power to rest.


Of course, technically, the current imbalance is fixable by tools still left in the system. Congress has the power to limit SCOTUS' jurisdiction, or change it. Congress has the ability to craft laws that meet SCOTUS tests. Amendments to the constitution can be passed.


But of course as a practical matter most of that (well, the last one especially) are effectively moot in the current era. So as the courts arrogate more and more power, and the political branches remain indifferent or unable to act - and the electorate takes it lying down - the imbalance starts to resemble a capital ship capsizing.

Posted by: rhomboid at April 25, 2016 07:46 PM (QDnY+)

73 It was as successful as anything else from the Bush family, which is to say that it was an outright fiasco, and the echoes of that failure continue to this day.
Posted by: torquewrench at April 25, 2016 07:28 PM (noWW6)

yes, I agree. The federal wetlands shit is where this all started.

but oh well, nothing we can do about it.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at April 25, 2016 07:49 PM (AkOaV)

74 Well I do get my big day to actually vote for something tomorrow, got a feeling it will be all for naught.

Posted by: Skip at April 25, 2016 07:49 PM (Dpy/y)

75 Posted by: rhomboid at April 25, 2016 07:46 PM (QDnY+)

SCOTUS gave themselves judicial review in Marbury, which was over 200 years ago.

No one is going to fix that.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at April 25, 2016 07:50 PM (AkOaV)

76 What concerns me the most about the ruling is that Kennedy sided with Thomas. Kennedy is normally wrong in however he votes.

Posted by: Zombie John Gotti at April 25, 2016 07:53 PM (g4zfM)

77 OT- Just heard a montage of Pres. Liar McLying pants, Kerry and Kirby at State telling us all how there would be no boots on the ground in Syria.

Posted by: Ben Had at April 25, 2016 07:54 PM (muUs+)

78 I want to see President Cruz if for no other reason than to see his appointees shoving throbbing logical dildoes up Dread Pirate Roberts' ass.
Posted by: JEM at April 25, 2016 07:23 PM (o+SC1)

You can see this:

Ted Cruz Lookalike Agrees To Do Porn For $10,000
http://tinyurl.com/zvt4efe



Posted by: Burnt Toast at April 25, 2016 07:57 PM (T78UI)

79 Personally I think "Resaon" should change their name to "Rationalize".

Because, I remember that time in 2008 when "Reason" cuddled up with the Progs and pretended like it made perfect sense to do so. So much to agree upon, etc.

Nevertheless, if I can't vote for Ted Cruz in the General, I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson. I'm going to be voting anyway so might as well vote for POTUS.

Posted by: CozMark at April 25, 2016 07:59 PM (CbGSW)

80 NOOD, Punishment

Posted by: Skip at April 25, 2016 07:59 PM (Dpy/y)

81 >>>It was as successful as anything else from the Bush
family, which is to say that it was an outright fiasco, and the echoes
of that failure continue to this day.


Posted by: torquewrench at April 25, 2016 07:28 PM (noWW6)<<<

Please clap.



Posted by: Jeb! at April 25, 2016 08:02 PM (H9MG5)

82 1) You will see no dildos in President Cruz reign. He won that case before the SCOTUS.

2) You notice that Trump calls Cruz Lyin Ted but usually calls Kasich .. Kasich. I think that is because Kasich sounds a lot like cat-sh*t.

Posted by: off topic at April 25, 2016 08:05 PM (CRXed)

83 g'early evenin', 'rons

Posted by: AltonJackson at April 25, 2016 08:07 PM (KCxzN)

84 I think the SCOTUS is just a front for the rest of DC. At least 66% of Congress likes what Obama and SCOTUS are doing. They just don't want the rubes back home (back in their district or state, DC is their home) to know it.

When this country was formed the men who ran it wanted people to know they ran it. Now we have Koch, Soros and others who think they are gods. Same as Carnegie and the rest from an earlier era. They want to pull strings and not take responsibility. sh*t-weasels

And Koch and Soros and the rest (Koch family isn't even the worst) have bought people who can be bought to tell us what good things they have done.
...spit...

Posted by: off topic at April 25, 2016 08:18 PM (CRXed)

85 This is why I'll hold my nose and vote Trump if I have to. I don't know who he'd try to put on the Supreme Court, but I KNOW the type of person that Hillary or Sanders would nominate. I'm willing to take that gamble.

Posted by: JasonF at April 25, 2016 08:46 PM (2mgRB)

86 Well whaddayou know; the Supreme Court says I was right to grab that widows house and President Obama agrees with my bathroom policy.

I told you I could be all Presidentially.

Posted by: Donald F. Troop, Failed Casino Boss at April 25, 2016 10:41 PM (Ndje9)

87 #31 We need transgendered gay felons of color on SCOTUS

Posted by: torabora at April 26, 2016 02:19 AM (74WPW)

(Jump to top of page)






Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0208 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0079 seconds, 96 records returned.
Page size 63 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.



MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!

Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat