Short Break

If you haven't noticed already this blog is on a short "work is insane, baseball, soccer, family in town, funeral, laundry taking over my basement, A/C crapped out, you mean in order to get my Masters I actually have to do the work, oh I forgot I volunteered for that" break.

Estimated return: your guess is as good as mine.... Soon, I hope, things have to settle down soon... right?

I will say though that I took a second to look over the Supreme Court ruling on that eminent domain case and all I can say is SICK, SICK, SICK. This is the case where the town of New London (I think) wants to level peoples homes to build a lakefront hotel, gym and offices - and the SC voted 5-4 in favor. Look, this may not seem related to father's rights to you but it is just another example of our government FAR overstepping its bounds. Similar to government overstepping in turning fathers into visitors in the lives of their children.

The following quote are from this article:

Homes may be 'taken' for private projects
Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good

The 5-4 ruling, assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing disproportionate influence and power to the well-heeled represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex.

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random, O'Connor wrote. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Thomas filed a separate opinion to argue that seizing homes for private development, even with just compensation, is unconstitutional.