Party At Souter's!

Mike · 07-01-2005, 10:50 AM

Ok, so that was news. Now, back to my stories.
---------

So these 15 petitioners or so take it through the CT supreme court, courts of probate, etc., and eventually take it to the Supreme Court where it is deliberated on for the last year, or whatever. And the decision is handed down last week.

Representing the opinion of the majority (5-4), Justice Stevens writes a lot of historical banter in his first two sections (I and II) and then gets into his decision in section III.

He admits that,

[quote]Two polar propositions are perfectly clear. On the one hand, it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation. On the other hand, it is equally clear that a State may transfer property from one private party to another if future

07-01-2005, 10:50 AM	#4
Mike Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 489	Ok, so that was news. Now, back to my stories. --------- So these 15 petitioners or so take it through the CT supreme court, courts of probate, etc., and eventually take it to the Supreme Court where it is deliberated on for the last year, or whatever. And the decision is handed down last week. Representing the opinion of the majority (5-4), Justice Stevens writes a lot of historical banter in his first two sections (I and II) and then gets into his decision in section III. He admits that, [quote]Two polar propositions are perfectly clear. On the one hand, it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation. On the other hand, it is equally clear that a State may transfer property from one private party to another if future