History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
I don't mean to pettifog, and I do admire anyone trying to vindicate the rights of victims of the state (although we don't know if the Kelos are democrats or other type or socialist, or if they actually support the state's right of eminent domain in general, in which case their complaint is not highest on my list) -- and as I have said, even though I would oppose institutionally a system that gave the feds the power to overrule state laws like this, I would still fight for myself or clients any way I could to vindicate my or my client's rights. If I could use the feds to force the states to back off, I would--even though I am a federalist.
But my question is--what is courageous about the IJ did? Even if it is a good thing, and noble, what is actually courageous about it? I don't mean to pettifog, I am serious.
I don't mean to pettifog, and I do admire anyone trying to vindicate the rights of victims of the state (although we don't know if the Kelos are democrats or other type or socialist, or if they actually support the state's right of eminent domain in general, in which case their complaint is not highest on my list) -- and as I have said, even though I would oppose institutionally a system that gave the feds the power to overrule state laws like this, I would still fight for myself or clients any way I could to vindicate my or my client's rights. If I could use the feds to force the states to back off, I would--even though I am a federalist.
But my question is--what is courageous about the IJ did? Even if it is a good thing, and noble, what is actually courageous about it? I don't mean to pettifog, I am serious.