Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boatin
I'm not sure quite what you are saying here. I see the irony of the first point as one of the things the current, conservative, administration is walking all over. Most every environmental issue in my State involves private use of public land. Approved and abetted by the conservatives.
Not sure what your second issue is about. When I think of State's rights (not what you mean, I'm sure), I think of the current administrations issues with my State's legally voted decision about medical marijuana.
I would be all for a government/court that supported public as public, and private as private (particularly when private is individual activities with/for themselves). Strangely, that's NOT what we get with this administration.
So pardon my cynacism when I doubt that's what we'll get with it's nominees.
|
First of all the catch all "current conservative adminsitration" is invalid. My first point was made possible by the liberalist of justices....NOT THE CURRENT "NEO"CON adminstration.
Second of all, I whole heartedly agree and share your issue with the federal government's ability to intercede on the grounds of interstate commerce (also made possible by the liberalist of justices), in a democratically approved activity that is non-commercial and conducted within the borders of a single state.
The nonsense about the "current conservative administration" is absurd. They were complicit, but they aren't conservative, and they only got what the liberal court gave them.
Finally, I share your validly asserted cynacism regarding nominee possibilities.
I'd really like to learn more about your indication that environmental concerns and conservatives are in any way in collusion against private property.
-bear