Supreme Court - what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

I thought Congress was overreaching with their steroid laws, but they've got nothing on the Supreme Court. Anyone who doesn't see a problem with an activist Supreme Court (by activist I mean a court that believes the Constitution is a living document) should read the Kelo v. City of New London decision on eminent domain. Five clowns on the Court made a de facto decision that part of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional. Yes, you read that correctly. The Constitution doesn't mean what it says. The Fifth Amendment allowed the taking of private property "for public use" (with compensation) which had always meant roads or airports. These five dickweeds ruled that "public use" really means "public interest" which means that New London, CT can confiscate people's houses and give them to a private developer because his hotel/office complex will generate more tax revenue than simple family dwellings.

I had always thought that to amend the Constitution, you needed two-thirds of both houses of Congress and the states. Yet, five judges have managed to do it on their own. Asshole justice Stephen Breyer even admitted that pretty much anything can be considered in the "public interest". So, that means that this particular part of the Fifth Amendment has been done away with by five people. Not just five people. Five people who are a combination of two of the least respected professions - lawyers and politicians. Is this how our government is supposed to be run? To basically allow five individuals, whose sole qualification for the job is that they could make it through confirmation hearings, to completely re-write our Constitution?

What I really want to know is where are the liberals? Several conservative and property rights groups have come out against this decision (one is trying to use eminent domain to take Justice David Souter's house to replace with a hotel), but I don't see any liberals. Who do you think will really be affected by this decision? I remember when Donald Trump tried to use a New Jersey development commission to take a house from a little old lady to expand his casino parking lot. Fortunately, Trump lost, but does anyone really think that his house would ever be threatened by eminent domain? Of course not, the only people who are in danger of having their property taken for "redevelopment" are lower income people who aren't politically connected. Yet, where are the liberals? Shouldn't they be demanding protection for the little man against the rich corporate developer? I guess they are so wedded to getting more taxes to blow on meaningless shit that they'll throw an old woman out of her home to raise their tax base. Well, private property rights are a cornerstone of freedom, so I think the composition of the Supreme Court needs to change, because five of the bastards we have apparently are unaware that the Constitution was designed to set limits on government not expand it's power.

Steroids & Congress - a match made in Hell

I probably shouldn't read the news. Half the time I feel like I'm going to have a brain spasm when I do. I just read where a House of Representatives committee has approved the Drug Free Sports Act. If passed into law, it will set the penalties for positive steroid tests in MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL (like it was necessary to include hockey). Normally, I like it when Congress gets involved in silly shit like this. I figure it means they won't be doing anything in important areas where they can cause real damage. However, I have to ask - have these friggin' morons completely lost their mind? Since when does Congress need to get involved in sports' rules? Should legislative agenda be set based on what gets John McCain face time on TV? There used to be the old saying about not making a federal case about everything, but that's certainly no longer the case in this country. Our Congressmen seem to think they need to pass a law about every friggin' thing that comes to mind. What's next? Mandating how many illegitimate kids NBA players can have?
Do I think steroids should have a place in professional sports? No. I don't care if someone wants to damage their future health by taking them, but it screws it for players who don't want to take them. The only way to be competitive with the juice junkies is to take steroids themselves. So, yes, I think the leagues should ban steroids. That doesn't mean Congress should be involved. The Congressional hearings on steroids (otherwise known as the "we'll be on CSPAN and ESPN hearings) were the biggest joke I have ever seen. Instead of leading to less steroid use, I think it could have led to more. Suppose Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire had admitted that their home run chase was fueled by steroids. Sammy Sosa still plays at a relatively high level, and while retired, McGwire still looked in good shape. So, what's some zit-faced 16 year old who thinks he can be a major leaguer even though he can't start for his high school JV team going to think? If I take steroids, I may have medical problems years down the road, but I'll make lots of money and become a larger than life celebrity. I sure nobody wants that.
If Congress thinks getting involved in setting penalties for sports teams is good, what will they think of next? I think baseball's bigger problem is a lack of competitive balance due to salary issues. Should Congress go in and decide what the salary cap should be? Should they decide what tickets should cost? How about regulating the price of hot dogs? Maybe they can clarify what the offsides rule is in hockey (or declare the NHL a national disaster)? Why isn't the WNBA included? The complete lack of fan interest didn't preclude the NHL from being added. Maybe the President should use the Taft-Hartley Act to order the NHL players to start playing again? You see the problem? Once Congress gets involved in penny-ante shit like this, there is no stopping them. After passing crap legislation like this, who do you think needs to be drug tested - baseball players or Congress?