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

It's the 19th Anniversary for T1B - Fuckin' A

Moderator: Jesus H Christ

User avatar
ChargerMike
2007/2011 JFFL champ
Posts: 5647
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:26 pm
Location: So.Cal.

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

Post by ChargerMike »

...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
JIP said...Hell, Michael Sam has more integrity than you do.

Image
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

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

"Stupid" captures it perfectly.
User avatar
See You Next Wednesday
De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:34 pm

Post by See You Next Wednesday »

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

"Stupid" captures it perfectly.
5/9ths stupid
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

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
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

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.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

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.
User avatar
Degenerate
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 1446
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:05 pm
Location: DC

Post by Degenerate »

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.
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29903
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

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
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

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
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

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.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

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.
User avatar
KatMode
Elwood
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:51 pm
Location: your mom's Pleasure Palace

Post by KatMode »

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.
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29903
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

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.
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Post by Dinsdale »

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?
Last edited by Dinsdale on Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
KatMode
Elwood
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:51 pm
Location: your mom's Pleasure Palace

Post by KatMode »

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
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

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
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

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.
User avatar
RadioFan
Liberal Media Conspirator
Posts: 7487
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Tulsa

Post by RadioFan »

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.
Van wrote:It's like rimming an unbathed fat chick from Missouri. It's highly distinctive, miserably unforgettable and completely wrong.
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

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
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

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.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

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
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

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.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
Variable
Untitled
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Variable »

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.
User avatar
See You Next Wednesday
De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:34 pm

Post by See You Next Wednesday »

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.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29903
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

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
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

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.
User avatar
Diego in Seattle
Rouser Of Rabble
Posts: 8942
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Duh

Post by Diego in Seattle »

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.
“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
9/27/22
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

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.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
Variable
Untitled
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Variable »

5 billion or so quasi-pubic corps in NY
I thought Giuliani cleaned up Times Square...
User avatar
Bizzarofelice
I wanna be a bear
Posts: 10216
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Post by Bizzarofelice »

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."
why is my neighborhood on fire
Variable
Untitled
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Variable »

No, we're a pwn3rship society.

Image
User avatar
Mike the Lab Rat
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 1948
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: western NY

Post by Mike the Lab Rat »

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.
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

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.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
User avatar
Diogenes
The Last American Liberal
Posts: 6985
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Ghost In The Machine

Post by Diogenes »

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.
Message brought to you by Diogenes.
The Last American Liberal.

ImageImage
User avatar
Diogenes
The Last American Liberal
Posts: 6985
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Ghost In The Machine

Post by Diogenes »

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....
Message brought to you by Diogenes.
The Last American Liberal.

ImageImage
Variable
Untitled
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Variable »

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
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

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

It is not.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

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.
User avatar
Bizzarofelice
I wanna be a bear
Posts: 10216
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Post by Bizzarofelice »

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.
why is my neighborhood on fire
User avatar
Rushville
Elwood
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:24 pm

Post by Rushville »

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

It is not.
Rack.

Sincerely,

the indians

(feather not dot)
Post Reply