Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Supremely Disappointed

From all accounts, it appears that the Supreme Court's final hurrah for the season chose the big guy over the little guy every time.


  • Eminent Domain - I was not all that excited with the idea of the government seizing land unless it was for utilitarian purposes like highways or public utilities and, even then, that they should do so with great care and sensitivity. Now, it appears a business can come in and claim their multi-national widget shop is more important than your home and kick you out (at "fair market value" of course).

  • File Sharing - The court also decided that people don't steal music, file sharing software developers do. This opens the door for a cadre of lawyers to seal an oligopoly for big music labels. It won't work, but they keep trying.

  • The Ten Commandments - Actually, this is a tempest in a teapot. This ruling stops nobody from privately praying or worshipping as they choose. It won't close any churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, or fog-shrouded circles of oaks with a stone altar at the center. Everything is as it was before and would have been if the ruling had been different. In short, who cares?



I guess this qualifies as politics, but I'm allowed a little ranting now and then I think. I've also been wanting to post something lately, but work has been busy.

Also, I made a comment over at security expert Bruce Schneier's blog on the subject of preventing identity theft. One might think the common theme for me through these points and links is that something must be done about big corporations, but that is only partially true. I am actually in favor of individual sovereignty and think that corporations, who cannot feel or think, should exist to enhance and encourage individual sovereignty. When corporations start squashing individual rights, they are no better than governments that do the same. We did without corporations until after the civil war, so it isn't as though they are necessary to the functioning of a free market.

Your mileage may vary. Also, I've decided that I don't have any commenting guidelines any more. Just try to be civil and try to avoid writing anything you wouldn't say to someone's face. Farking yeah.

19 comments:

The Moody Minstrel said...

I could be wrong, but it seems like in an awful lot of those recent, bizarre rulings, the majority opinion, in a nutshell, was something like, "The Constitution doesn't specifically say you can't do this, so...well...whatever. NEXT!"

I don't think it was ruling for the big guy over the little guy so much as simply wanting to be done with it.

Don Snabulus said...

Given that all the cases were decided on the last day, you might well be right. Supreme procrastination...

DewKid said...

I heard a story on the news yesterday, where there was this guy that put in a request for Eminent Domain to build a hotel on the property (and home) of one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted for this. He's getting quite a few investors interested.

I hope he succeeds.

Don Snabulus said...

Me too. I was going to mention but couldn't remember where I saw the link. I laughed and laughed.

Vulgarius said...

I could just see the Supreme Court being replaced with a Wall Mart!... Justice comes to roost.

DewKid said...

I found this link that reads the same as the radio news story I heard.

Pa've said...

After working for numerous big corporations I can definitely say that the group think within the corporate structure comes as a result of fear of being sued by the employees for not covering their ass properly. Hence the employee handbook. Hence ID badges, and security cameras, and a not so trusting and friendly atmosphere.

DewKid said...

I think that depends on the company. The corporation I work for has a very trusting and friendly atmosphere.

Don Snabulus said...

The corporation I work for is HUGE. Almost 10 people, some of whom I know by name.

Some day, I will own a corporation AND I WILL RULE WITH AN IRON FIST!!!!

Anonymous said...

Eltigris: Cool Don.... you can hire some of us here as your private security force (aka army)... just so we can drive around in a black armored SUVs....and you can review the 100 things I would do as the dark evil overlord emperor

Anonymous said...

Hence ID badges, and security cameras, and a not so trusting and friendly atmosphere

I'm thinking stop-loss and industrial espionage prevention here, not employee suing.

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around, is it still a liberal's fault?

Satan said...

SPEAKING of flag burning....

Pa've said...

No, I'm sorry, the TV cameras were installed specifically to keep company employees from stealing. That is what I was told, and that is how we were treated, like common petty theives that couldn't be trusted. Its pathetic.

Pa've said...

As an added point, since this is about the supreme court, this is the only governing authority that can rule two different ways on the same issue, and "justify" both rulings. Its a load of crap.

The Moody Minstrel said...

Ruling two different ways on the same issue and justifying both? You mean the way our beloved administration wants to eliminate nuclear weapons everywhere else in the world while at the same time bolstering our own stockpile, and justifying both endeavors?

It's called a "double-standard", Pa've, and it's not just the Supreme Court that is guilty.

rob said...

That Eminent Domain ruling just makes me sick. It probably doesn't help that I've been reading "A People's History of the United States" lately (gives a little perspective on this type of crap).

I emailed the supposed developers behind the idea of the Souter Residence/Hotel&Museum replacement project telling them I'd plunk down $500 as an investor.

If they get enough interest, how on Earth can the "Selectmen" in the town deny them? (Other than the fact that they're in Souter's backpocket I mean..)

DewKid said...

Its not pathetic, Pa've, its reality. My wife used to do security for a large retail store chain, and they lost more money from employees than from shoplifters.

If you owned a company, you would do your best to protect your investment from the common petty thieves you call your employees.

Of course, that's not to say the company owners are sweet as morning dew, as we've seen with certain energy companies...

Mmm, Dew. Sweet sweet Mountain Dew. [siiip] Mmmmm. What were we talking about? Courts or something?

Some Guy said...

Yeah? Well, you guys all suck!

CutieAppleAngel6 said...

No, I don't!

I BLOW!!!!!!!!