--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 6/25/05 12:35:48 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > That's the justification. However, the conservative judges were mostly > against it. > > > > > Yes and we need several more strict constructionist judges placed on the SC.
Doubtful that constructionism plays that big a role in the ruling, either way. If you can justify one kind of co-opting of private land based on "common good" arguments, you can justify another. In fact, if you're a strict constructionist, you would have to accept the argument. Most judges go with a bit of personal sense of "ick" when it comes down to such decisions, however and apparently the liberals felt less "ick" about the whole thing than the conservatives. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
