Thanks to our [b]Liberal[/b] Supreme Court...

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:51 pm

...the government can now come in and bulldoze YOUR crib if they feel it's in their best ($$$) interest.

Yep, once again Anthony Kennedy voted with the Lib's to pass this POS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 83_pf.html

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:52 pm

No need to characterize te Court as "liberal" or otherwise.

"Stupid" captures it perfectly.

See You Next Wednesday · Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:54 pm

DrDetroit wrote:No need to characterize te Court as "liberal" or otherwise.

"Stupid" captures it perfectly.

5/9ths stupid

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:16 pm

You have to wonder what these dipshits are thinking...among the few universally accepted democratic institutions is private property and the protection of private property from the government.

Congress must step in on this.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:24 pm

DrDetroit wrote:You have to wonder what these dipshits are thinking...among the few universally accepted democratic institutions is private property and the protection of private property from the government.

Congress must step in on this.

You're a funny guy. Congress knows where their bread is buttered. And it ain't by poor folks who live in CT.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:29 pm

B...you think this applies to only CT?? If not, then why even mention that Congress' bread ain't buttered by CT residents?

Dipshit, the 5th Amendment has been completely rewritten with this ruling.

Degenerate · Post by **Degenerate** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:40 pm

DrDetroit wrote: Congress must step in on this.

It's hard to write a law when your hands are holding fistfuls of contribution checks from developers.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:40 pm

It's amazing, though not surprising, that any of you would characterize this as some kind of "liberal" victory. The ones who stand to profit are the developers and businesses (not normally bastions of the liberal left) who will be taking over these peoples' properties.

Nice try though.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:44 pm

Well, Mikey, while I wouldn't characterize this as a "liberal" victory, I would suggest that in addition to being a stupid decision, it can fairly be characterized as "liberal."

It's an actvist judicial decision based on the premise that the Constitution is a living document and results in tearing away from citizens private property rights while expanding the authority of the State.

Quite "liberal" in my book.

Disagree?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:53 pm

DrDetroit wrote:Well, Mikey, while I wouldn't characterize this as a "liberal" victory, I would suggest that in addition to being a stupid decision, it can fairly be characterized as "liberal."

It's an actvist judicial decision based on the premise that the Constitution is a living document and results in tearing away from citizens private property rights while expanding the authority of the State.

Quite "liberal" in my book.

Disagree?

Ah, so you were under the delusion that private property rights trump corporate property rights. Since when has that been true in America?

Truth be told, the groundwork for this decision was laid a long time ago when quasi-public corporations like the New York State Thurway Authority were allowed the use of eminent domain.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:59 pm

BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:Well, Mikey, while I wouldn't characterize this as a "liberal" victory, I would suggest that in addition to being a stupid decision, it can fairly be characterized as "liberal."

It's an actvist judicial decision based on the premise that the Constitution is a living document and results in tearing away from citizens private property rights while expanding the authority of the State.

Quite "liberal" in my book.

Disagree?
Ah, so you were under the delusion that private property rights trump corporate property rights. Since when has that been true in America?

Truth be told, the groundwork for this decision was laid a long time ago when quasi-public corporations like the New York State Thurway Authority were allowed the use of eminent domain.

The groundwork for this decision to permit the State taking private property for private use was laid in decisions permitting the State to "take" private property for public use?

Please explain?

There never was an unqualified, unrestricted right to private property in the 5th Amendment, fool.

KatMode · Post by **KatMode** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:20 pm

Oh good God. Stop with the bullshit "blame the liberals" chant.

John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer voted FOR it.

Sandra Day O’Connor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas voted AGAINST it.

-----------------

John Paul Stevens - President Ford nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat December 19, 1975.

Anthony Kennedy - President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat February 18, 1988.

David Souter - President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 9, 1990.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - President Clinton nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat August 10, 1993.

Stephen Breyer - President Clinton nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat August 3, 1994.

-----------------

Sandra Day O’Connor - President Reagan nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat September 25, 1981.

William H. Rehnquist - President Nixon nominated him to the Supreme Court, and he took his seat as an Associate Justice on January 7, 1972. Nominated as Chief Justice by President Reagan, he assumed that office on September 26, 1986.

Antonin Scalia - President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat September 26, 1986.

Clarence Thomas - President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 23, 1991.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/bio ... urrent.pdf

Chirst, there are 2 justices nominated by a Democrat. All the rest were nominated by Republicans. 3 of those fuckers sided with the eeevvvvuulll liberals, so it is obviously not a liberal SC as the title claims. Now, maybe we should start looking into what all those contributions and gifts the SC Justices are taking are for and from whom.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:28 pm

DrDetroit wrote:Well, Mikey, while I wouldn't characterize this as a "liberal" victory, I would suggest that in addition to being a stupid decision, it can fairly be characterized as "liberal."

It's an actvist judicial decision based on the premise that the Constitution is a living document and results in tearing away from citizens private property rights while expanding the authority of the State.

Quite "liberal" in my book.

Disagree?

About the weakest argument for calling something "liberal" I've ever seen.

On second though, about par for your course.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:29 pm

KatMode wrote:Now, maybe we should start looking into what all those contributions and gifts the SC Justices are taking are for and from whom.

Fuck that. Are you kidding? And miss out on an opportunity to divide the country farther than it already is, and cheat myself out of a chance to pat myself on the back for being a big fucking winner, while looking down my nose and proclaiming "it's all the liberals fault....BODE ME!"

No way.

If yo stub your toe on the leg of the coffee table, it was obviously a liberal table leg, which of course makes you a big fucking winner of the world, despite that your toe is bleeding.

Don't you know how this shit works yet?

KatMode · Post by **KatMode** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:48 pm

KatMode wrote:Chirst, there are 2 justices nominated by a Democrat. All the rest were nominated by Republicans. 3 of those fuckers sided with the eeevvvvuulll liberals

mvscal wrote:The liberal justices voted for it and the conservatives voted against it.

Counting a little difficult for you??

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:49 pm

KatMode...a decision can be characterized as "liberal" even if conservative justices voted for it...

And look at Dins carping about the country being divided...waaahahhhhaaaa....dickhead. of course it's divided. We all have different ideas of right and wrong as well as differing political principles and values.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:49 pm

Mikey wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:Well, Mikey, while I wouldn't characterize this as a "liberal" victory, I would suggest that in addition to being a stupid decision, it can fairly be characterized as "liberal."

It's an actvist judicial decision based on the premise that the Constitution is a living document and results in tearing away from citizens private property rights while expanding the authority of the State.

Quite "liberal" in my book.

Disagree?
About the weakest argument for calling something "liberal" I've ever seen.

On second though, about par for your course.

I only see "liberals" telling us that the Constitution is a living document and "breathing life" into it.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:52 pm

DrDetroit wrote:And look at Dins carping about the country being divided...

That's not what he said. No real surprise it went over your head though, again.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:58 pm

Then what was Dins doing here:

And miss out on an opportunity to divide the country farther than it already is...

Well?

Let him tell me what he meant...we don't need you.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:22 pm

DrDetroit wrote:The groundwork for this decision to permit the State taking private property for private use was laid in decisions permitting the State to "take" private property for public use? Please explain? There never was an unqualified, unrestricted right to private property in the 5th Amendment, fool.

You obviously aren't familiar with the concept of a quasi-public corporation.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:24 pm

No, I am...but please explain how rulings affirming the constitutional taking of private property laid the groundwork for this ruling...in essence what you're saying is that the Constitution laid the groundwork for this ruling. Dunce.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:40 pm

Christ you're thick. Eminent domain is a concept of common law. The right of eminent domain is not in question. The question is to what degree the right can be exercised. My point is that once we went down the slippry slope of giving the right to Eminent domain to quasi-public corporations, the idea of governments using said power to benefit private corporations could be far behind.

Read up on Robert Moses and get back to me.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:00 pm

This isn't just a CT issue, either. They're planning to widen the 101-hwy in the future and there are two hundred houses in the way. Eminent domain anyone? The only reason it hasn't been done yet is that there are a handfull of old fogies that for some reason actually like living next to a congested, smog-spewing freeway and have fought it so far. Ultimately though, the needs of 1 million commuters will outweigh the desire of a few blue hairs to people watch.

BTW, they were offered about double what the houses were worth.

See You Next Wednesday · Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:39 pm

I agree that the the liberal wing of the SCOTUS is responsible for this dangerous decision, I don't think it would be correct to say it is the liberal position. I think this decision is a fairly equal opportunity offender: liberals would tend to decrythe overuse of governement to favor business over the "downtrodden", while conservatives would naturally be upset over the expansion of governement power especially over private property rights. Both sides come to the same conclusion, albeit by different roads.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:14 pm

DrDetroit wrote:
Mikey wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:Well, Mikey, while I wouldn't characterize this as a "liberal" victory, I would suggest that in addition to being a stupid decision, it can fairly be characterized as "liberal."

It's an actvist judicial decision based on the premise that the Constitution is a living document and results in tearing away from citizens private property rights while expanding the authority of the State.

Quite "liberal" in my book.

Disagree?
About the weakest argument for calling something "liberal" I've ever seen.

On second though, about par for your course.
I only see "liberals" telling us that the Constitution is a living document and "breathing life" into it.

I guess the real difference is that the "conservatives" don't worry about explaining whether the Constitution is a "liviing" document or whatever. They just go ahead and ignore it whenever it suits them and go around accusing "liberals" of favoring activist judges.

Can you say hy•po•cris•y

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:36 pm

It's quite revealing of the Democrats that their only arguments regarding Republicans is that they are hypocrites...that's their strongest argument.

And even then they're wrong. There is a difference between inconsistency and hypocrisy. Not that they could recognize that.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:43 am

I gotta admit that I was shocked that so many conservatives voted against it (especially Thomas).

And I agree that this decision is very much against the intent of our FF's. Fuck them if they think they can ever take my cardboard box just to build more expensive homes.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:24 am

mvscal wrote:
Statement from California State Senator Tom McClintock:

“Today the U.S. Supreme Court broke the social compact by striking down one of Americans’ most fundamental rights. Their decision nullifies the Constitution’s Public Use clause and opens an era when the rich and powerful may use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain.”

“The responsibility now falls on the various states to reassert and restore the property rights of their citizens. I am today announcing my intention to introduce an amendment to the California Constitution to restore the original meaning of the property protections in the Bill of Rights. This amendment will require that the government must either own the property it seizes through eminent domain or guarantee the public the legal right to use the property. In addition, it will require that such property must be restored to the original owner or his rightful successor, if the government ceased to use it for the purpose of the eminent domain action.”

I see the GOP is wasting no time giving this issue lip service. Of course when it comes time to vote, they will realize that this is no different than empowering a bonded quasi-public corporation with eminent domain. In fact, if anything, the city officails are MORE accountable to the voters than any of the 5 billion or so quasi-pubic corps in NY are. At least the New London pols had to hold open meetings. Quasi-public corps don't have any of those kinds of piddling distractions.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:49 am

5 billion or so quasi-pubic corps in NY

I thought Giuliani cleaned up Times Square...

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:16 am

Degenerate wrote:
DrDetroit wrote: Congress must step in on this.
It's hard to write a law when your hands are holding fistfuls of contribution checks from developers.

can't stop racking you.

This decisions sucks more ass than imaginable. I'm thinking like Scalia here all rustered that the court is reinterpreting domain law for what they perceive as the greater good. Fuck evicting people for the benefit of Wal-Mart and Borders and Home Depot.

I thought we were an "ownership society."

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:46 am

No, we're a pwn3rship society.

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:59 am

As you can imagine, I'm freaking pissed at this decision. Our Founding Fathers are doubtless spinning in their graves. Property was one of the most important reasons folks came here and one of the most hallowed rights in common law and American belief. The five SCOTUS "justices" spit on the documented beliefs and traditions upon which our nation was founded.

Eminent domain is legalese for "theft or extortion by government in the alleged name of 'public good'"

Forceable redistribution of private wealth -land, money-, even for government-deemed "public good" or 'fainess" or "equity" is theft, plain and simple. Government sanctioning the activity doesn't legitimize the activity...it merely delegitimizes the government.

Mussolini, Stalin, and Mao would defiitely approve of the Supreme Court's decision.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:59 am

Variable wrote:
5 billion or so quasi-pubic corps in NY
I thought Giuliani cleaned up Times Square...

No, Disney cleaned up Times Square. Giuliani did what he does best. He took the credit for it.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:49 am

mvscal wrote:
Statement from California State Senator Tom McClintock:

“Today the U.S. Supreme Court broke the social compact by striking down one of Americans’ most fundamental rights. Their decision nullifies the Constitution’s Public Use clause and opens an era when the rich and powerful may use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain.”

“The responsibility now falls on the various states to reassert and restore the property rights of their citizens. I am today announcing my intention to introduce an amendment to the California Constitution to restore the original meaning of the property protections in the Bill of Rights. This amendment will require that the government must either own the property it seizes through eminent domain or guarantee the public the legal right to use the property. In addition, it will require that such property must be restored to the original owner or his rightful successor, if the government ceased to use it for the purpose of the eminent domain action.”
It will be interesting to see how the liberal cunts in Sacto deal with this.

They'll either ignore it or smear it.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:50 am

Have you been around
Have you done your share of coming down
On different things that people do
Have you been aware
You got brothers and sisters who care
About what's gonna happen to you
In a year from now...

Maybe I'll be there to shake your hand
Maybe I'll be there to take your land
That I'll be giving away
When we all live together.

Did you pay your dues
Did you read the news
This morning when the paper landed in your yard
Do you know their names
Can you play their games
And coming down a bit too hard...

Maybe I'll be there to shake your hand
Maybe I'll be there to take your land
That I'll be giving away
When we all live together.

Shake your hand, take your land
Shake your hand, take your land
You know I'll be standing by
To help you if you worry....

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:47 pm

mvscal wrote:
Statement from California State Senator Tom McClintock:

“Today the U.S. Supreme Court broke the social compact by striking down one of Americans’ most fundamental rights. Their decision nullifies the Constitution’s Public Use clause and opens an era when the rich and powerful may use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain.”

“The responsibility now falls on the various states to reassert and restore the property rights of their citizens. I am today announcing my intention to introduce an amendment to the California Constitution to restore the original meaning of the property protections in the Bill of Rights. This amendment will require that the government must either own the property it seizes through eminent domain or guarantee the public the legal right to use the property. In addition, it will require that such property must be restored to the original owner or his rightful successor, if the government ceased to use it for the purpose of the eminent domain action.”
It will be interesting to see how the liberal cunts in Sacto deal with this.

They may actually let it go through. They're mainly bought off by the labor unions and trial lawyers. I think developers mostly buy off local politicians in CA.

BTW, a hearty rack for McClintock. No wonder this guy lost the recall election! He's way too eloquent, intelligent and fair for people to vote for him. On a serious note, I didn't vote for him either, because I thought that he's the type of guy that would need a full four years to make the changes that he wants. If he runs the next time around, I'll definitely dimple the chad in the box next to his name.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:50 pm

Why are you guys pretending this is some kind of new precedent?

It is not.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:02 pm

Because it is, dolt.

Even quasi-public agencies had to demonstrate a legitimate public use before the local government could exercise eminent domain.

This decision is not rooted in quasi-public agencies benefitting from eminent domain.

This ruling now permits local governments to take property for private use so long as it can make the case for a public benefit, not just use, and no matter how tangentially that "benefit" might be linked to the public.

The ruling has legitimized economic development as a proper role for local government and, hence, local governments can now take private property not only for public use, but also private no matter how narrow the public benefit might be.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:03 pm

BSmack wrote:Why are you guys pretending this is some kind of new precedent?

Well the town of New Haven didn't have the Supreme Court telling them they were fuct. Now they do. Now every strip-mall developer has another bit of ammo against homeowners.

Rushville · Post by **Rushville** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:34 pm

BSmack wrote:Why are you guys pretending this is some kind of new precedent?

It is not.

Rack.

Sincerely,

the indians

(feather not dot)