Steve, I have to completely agree with you on this one. This is an outrage. I certainly don't have a law background, so I cannot argue from a legal perspective, but if the law in fact allows this, it ought to be changed.

I've seen exactly the situation you are talking about out here. Local gov'ts get hot to trot for a baseball stadium (or whatever the mayor's "this-project-will-be-my-legacy" du jour happens to be).

Land is purchased and then small businesses and/or homes are kicked out leveled, sometimes after the families have been there for generations. Oh, what's that? There's no more money for the stadium? OK, let's use the liberated land for something else...how 'bout a big box store.

And to all those about to toss out accusations of NIMBYism, I reject that out of hand. Taking someone's property ought to be a last resort for only the most extreme circumstances. Not because some mayor wants a feather in his cap.

Law doesn't allow it. This is unconstitutional and wrong. This is the 'living constitution'. This is an 'interpereted meaning'.

We don't need 'living, changing' legislature to be reinterpreted by the judiciary. That's what we have a legislature for. If the meaning of the law is to change, it is for the legislature to change the word of the law and not for the judiciary to redefine the words to suit them.

Now that they've allowed this, someone in government with a skill at pushing hypothetical arguments to the breaking point will be allowed to take away your land for almost any reason whatsoever.

In this case, they took the land because the new tennants (large commercial businesses) will create more tax revenue for the city. That isn't even a garaunteed. The businesses may go belly up. And what a wonderful reason, what a great good! More money for the city to piss away without care until it has no more money and tries to cease more land.

These guys are completely without checks and there is no way to challenge thier decision. Our country is ruled by 5 people with lifetime appointments.

Fantastic Andy! Glad you agree that this is a scam. And I'd even go so far as to say that the school district being able to scam my house for a playground is a scam as well. I agree -- having a nice place for the kiddies to play is not a good enough reason for them to scream eminent domain.

I also agree with you Steve. The acquisition of someone's home ought to be left to the developer and not the government. We all know that eminent domain does not pay market value for government acquisitions. A developer would be required to pay what was asked and nothing less.

You will find that you have less ground to stand on though if the government decides to expand the elementary school onto your property. The need there is easier justified. In any event, I STRONGLY believe the government should be required to pay more than market value for your home, as opposed to less, because they are robbing you of more than just land and a building. In addition, there are often many more costs involved with building or buying a new home and relocating a family than you are compensated for.

Sure, blame it on the liberal appointed judges...when they were joined by a couple of conservative appointed judges.

Yeah matt....how many liberal judges dissented this horrible decision? For the record, it was classified as "liberal judges", not liberal "appointed" judges. Let's just guess what political ideology this decision to negate the right to own private property came from.....Bolshevism? Marxism? Communism? Surely conservative ideologies....

I also agree with Mattk's point. I think "we" are too quick to label this as judiciary run amok. And I certainly don't think this boils down to a Liberal vs. Conservative issue, either.

Although I disagree strongly with this decision, I give the benefit of the doubt that this is an honest ruling on the merits of the law as the justices see it, rather than an attempt to steer the country to a certain ideology. Looking back at previous decisions shows there is clearly no consistent Liberal/Conservative ideological division.

Supreme Court decisions on highly controversial "hot potato" public issues seem to have one side or the other in a uproar. I point to such decisions as the one to end voting on the 2000 election, the decision to uphold state law/previous decisions in the Schiavo case (please, let's not discuss that in this thread), or the decision to uphold the federal right to prosecute medical marijuana users. The outcome of these cases do not fit neatly into our notions of "Liberal" or "Conservative".

Throughout American history, many classic court cases were in sharp contrast to majority public opinion at the time, yet as society has evolved, many of the decisions have become pillars of accepted law. (And yes, still others have been overturned and rejected for the turds they were).

In any case, despite my distain for this decision, I still say we give the courts the benefit of the doubt that it is a ruling on the law, and not an attempt to overturn legislation.

JNE...agreed. If they need to build a school, expand an already present school...fine. That's allowed being a public building, even though it would suck for those getting screwed. ....but to use eminent domain to scarf up land for a private company to develop land for its own use all for "tax purposes" is a heap of excrement.

I also agree with Mattk's point. I think "we" are too quick to label this as judiciary run amok. And I certainly don't think this boils down to a Liberal vs. Conservative issue, either.

Although I disagree strongly with this decision, I give the benefit of the doubt that this is an honest ruling on the merits of the law as the justices see it, rather than an attempt to steer the country to a certain ideology. Looking back at previous decisions and the voting record of the Supreme judiciary shows there is clearly no consistent Liberal/Conservative vote.

Supreme Court decisions on highly controversial "hot potato" public issues seem to have one side or the other in a uproar. I point to such decisions as the one to end voting on the 2000 election, the decision to uphold state law/previous decisions in the Schiavo case (please, let's not discuss that in this thread), or the decision to uphold the federal right to prosecute medical marijuana users. The outcome of these cases (in the aggregate) do not fit neatly into our notions of "Liberal" or "Conservative".

In any case, despite my distain for this decision, I still say we give the courts the benefit of the doubt that it is a good faith ruling on the law--even if they got it wrong from my perspective.

Oops, that's "to end COUNTING on the 2000 election". Important distinction!

"In any case, despite my distain for this decision, I still say we give the courts the benefit of the doubt that it is a good faith ruling on the law--even if they got it wrong from my perspective."

**** that.

No.

**** that.

They are WRONG. The hell with them. The government can NOT take your house away and give it to WalMart, whether they think they can or not.

Accepting it, giving it the 'benefit of the doubt' (what freaking doubt by the way? I'm not at all doubtful they're completely wrong) is the only way they'll get away with this kind of crap, and they'll KEEP getting away with this kind of crap.

You have to make it clear that it is unacceptable and must be undone immediately.

This eminent domain $#% is noxious in the eyes of 99% of the people, whether "liberal", "conservative" or whatever other label you like to use to divide Americans into warring camps.

This pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage libertarian-voting green-registered body will be on the front lines if those in CT decide to make a real stand.

This is a terrible thing. Our forefathers would be rolling over in their graves.

Is there ANYTHING that can be done by The People to fight this?

I can't get over how bad this is.

This ruling is total bullshit. When an American buys property, he's investing in a promise to his family and community. If the city, county or state wants that property, let them negotiate with that man/woman. If he/she does not want to sell, move on.

A part of the American Dream is dead thanks to the Supreme Court. By the way this is not a liberal or conservative issue-it's an American citizen issue

That's to "end UnConstitutional (both US and FL) vote counting in 2000"...

Matt:

What does this mean to you?:

"I don't expect to ever again hear any of you liberals spouting your BS about how the U.S. Supreme Court is conservative just because of who appointed the majority of them."

As Sarge pointed out, I don't give a rat's ass who appointed them, they are liberal and Bush and Reagan shouldn't have appointed them.

Also, this is a liberal/conservative issue as hell. It's quite obvious that the liberals on the court feel that they can pull this type of BS out of wherever they happen to want to, in Kennedy's case, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government,". I'm thinking that the founders -- the crafters of the constitution -- would think this is utter BS. They didn't even define eminent domain as loosely as we do today. Show me a conservative Supreme Court decision where they used the "pull it out of your ass" method for coming up with the majority opinion.

Steve - The only reason why you identy them as liberal is because you don't like them. I bet you consider paper cuts liberal as well.

How the hell _CAN_ you consider this a liberal/conservative issue WHEN THERE IS NO PARTISAN BICKERING OVER THE TOPIC???

You've taken your opposition, labeled them liberal, bickered over issues and then labeled the whole process a partisan issue.

I'd like to see your political analysis of a termite infestation - "Damn liberal commie termites!"

Wait matt....did you name the liberal dissenter? It's a liberal issue because it smacks of communism...you know that liberal ideology, where only the leaders could actually own property and the People own nothing. Why is it that the 4 dissenters were the 4 conservative Constructionists? ...and there IS partisan bickering over this issue...or do you not pay attention to the world outside of PME?

....and termites ARE liberal commies...which is a redundant term.

.you know that liberal ideology,

Sarge really is that stupid.

Good...another baseless claim. Actually an incorrect claim because communism is clearly a liberal ideology. That's why there's all them communists in Cambridge...and the Center for Marxist Studies in Cambridge. And liberal Senators like to do that whole "from each, according to their wealth, TO each according to their need" bullshit. You know....redistrubution of the wealth that your liberal politicians tout...THAT's a socialist ideal. You know....the government's ability to take privately owned property and give it to someone else to profit off of.

UY really IS that stupid.....or are you gonna blame someone else for your stupidity as always?

ctually an incorrect claim because communism is clearly a liberal ideology.

You can say it is leftist, but I wouldnt call it Liberal.

You see there is also the whole entire Authoritarianism thing.

But you knew that right?

Sarge - You're completely playing into my previous comment.

I'm completely certain that its based on a conservative ideology because economic progress is the excuse for trampling the rights of the individual...

5th Ammendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken

strong

for public use

What is it about public that Kennedy doesn't understand.

Bill

Matty,

All joking aside, you really are dumber than dirt. To even suggest that shitting on the Constitution just to raise taxes and increase gubmint is in any way conservative is astounding and breathtakingly mindless. You are a hopeless fool.

Does your brain have any function besides keeping your jumbo ears from colliding?

I'm completely certain that its based on a conservative ideology because economic progress is the excuse for trampling the rights of the individual...

Well, feel free to be completely and certainly incorrect. Exactly which conservative ideology would THAT be? Quick...pull something out of your ass.

....and exactly which liberal SC judge dissented on this horrible decisioni?

is in any way conservative is astounding and breathtakingly mindless.

Its more about corporate whoredom, walmarts etc. sounds pretty Conservative to me.

"I'm completely certain that its based on a conservative ideology because economic progress is the excuse for trampling the rights of the individual..."

Well, since you're "completely certain," you must be right. So there's only one explanation for the liberals being the ones voting for this nonsense (even the "swing" conservative--O'Connor went completely ballistic in dissenting from this disaster). Evidently, the liberals on the court have become so in love with the conservatives that they want to be just like them. So they are now voting the way they THINK the conservatives will. Kind of like a "Single White Female" scenario. They want to be JUST LIKE the conservatives.

Well, the conservatives would like the liberals to know that we DON'T think that way, and the idea that you THINK we do is creepy and crazy. (Jennifer Jason Leigh has NOTHING on Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer--Which one is the "conservative, again? I just hope they don't all try to imitate Justice Thomas's hairstyle!)

UY....why don't you actually LEARN about communism before you make dumbshit statements like that. Communism has nothing to do with big coporations....as in, the GOVERNMENT controls all means of production.

HERE....your favorite site has a general, though lovingly utopian, descriptioin of it. Of course, you could just go and make dumbshit comments that show you know nothing about it.

You DO know that you're actually supposed to actually learn something in college don't you?

Communism has nothing to do with big coporations.

Yeah. And I was talking about Authoritarianism. You really are brain damaged.

Seeing as you have not even mentioned authoritarianism and made a comment about communism.....you're backpeddlijng into yet another place that's incorrect. There's nothing in the conservative ideology that calls for authoritarianism....dumbshit....so you were talking about nothing but lies.

Seeing as you have not even mentioned authoritarianism

"You see there is also the whole entire Authoritarianism thing."

And then I talked about coroporate whoredom.

All I said about communism is that it can be called leftist but not really liberal considering the complete lack of individual freedoms.

There's nothing in the conservative ideology that calls for authoritarianism..

Well thats true but if you mean traditional conservatism but then you guys arent traditional conservatives. You guys worship dear leader.

So how is the brain damage treating you?

Authoritarianism has nothing to do with conservatism...AT ALL. ....and what you commented on with your lame corporate whoredom comment(...is in any way conservative is astounding and breathtakingly mindless.) was in response to matt's attempt to claim that communism is a conservative ideology (which even YOU know is full of shit) had nothing to do with "authoritarianism"....rather what you commented on (...is in any way conservative is astounding and breathtakingly mindless.) had EVERYTHING to do with labelling conservatism as COMMUNISM....so in YOUR head...while commenting on COMMUNISM, you're gonna add a comment about "authoritarianism"....that's illogically fucked up. Continue on with your asinine attempt to pin incorrect ideologies to conservativism.

Authoritarianism has nothing to do with conservatism...AT ALL

Well yeah, but you guys are neocons.

You guy spend all your time trying to convice yourselves that anyone who disagrees with dear leader is a traitor.

Seeing as you have not even mentioned authoritarianism -Marge

"You see there is also the whole entire Authoritarianism thing."- Me

Uhuh.

Wrong....I'm a paleocon....but thanx for accepting the proof of my point...that it's 100% illogical to pin communism as a conservative ideology.

You guy spend all your time trying to convice yourselves that anyone who disagrees with dear leader is a traitor.

That's a lie. I only use the term "traitor" on anyone that actually picks up arms against the country or directly assists those that do....but I'll just add that to youir growing list of baseless accusations.

Concerningwhat YOU WERE ADDRESSING (I know it's difficult to keep a train of thought with your ADHD and all)....it had nothing to do with authoritarianism....flounder away.

I'm a paleocon.

then why would you support any republican? Look at their stances on fiscal responsiblity, Reagan and onward all were for deficit spending.

I only use the term "traitor"

You use the term anti/unamerican. Im pretty sure you have called quite a few people traitors falsely but im not going to split hairs.

And again many many of the Tards on your side have that habit.

Seeing as you have not even mentioned authoritarianism -Marge

"You see there is also the whole entire Authoritarianism thing. - Me

it had nothing to do with authoritarianism....flounder away.

You said I never said it where I clearly did.......

How many times do I have to friggin' explain it before y'all will finally accept my stance? I do not support "Republicans"...I support the whoever will fuck with the military less. I lived through a Democrat fucking the military up and will not vote for the likes of the AWOL Sen. Kerry that has voted to cut funding for the military AND intelligence communities every chance he can get. Why would I want a POTUS that's clearly voted to shit on the military?

Of COURSE you're not gonna split hairs...because you don't differentiate between 3 very different things called unAmerican, anti-American, and TRAITOR. Whether or not you want your hairs split...there's a difference and I only call traitors "traitors"...the last famous one was Taliban Johnny. Then ANY leftist that calls for "Victory to the Insurgency" You know...traitorous words.

...and what did "authoritarianism" have to do with what you were commenting on? Nothing? Flounder away little child. It's called misspelling the word when doing a Ctrl F (you know...my fingers are a little dyslexic)...but if that's all you got to play with...play away. Feel free to ignore that you brought the word up when commenting on communism.....AND feel free to ignore that authoritarianism has NOTHING to do with the conservative ideology. Choose to pick on the irrelevant, as usual.

I do not support "Republicans"...I support the whoever will fuck with the military less.

Then why do you vote for W?

Youve seen whats been happening to the troops lately?

I lived through a Democrat fucking the military up

Your definition of "fucking up" is retarded.

...and what did "authoritarianism" have to do with what you were commenting on?

Communism is on the authoritarian scale of political compass.

Liberalism as it is universally known is not.

Either way you said I never mentioned it when I clearly did.

AND feel free to ignore that authoritarianism has NOTHING to do with the conservative ideology.

Bullshit, look at you. Just how many people have you called anti or unamerican for not supporting dear leader?

Then why do you vote for W?

I will not answer that question when I already answered it in my last post. Fuck you for not comprehending english....case in point. Seeing as you have no idea about ANYTHING related to the military, you have no basis on deciding what's fucked up or not...idiot.

Liberalism is on the socialist side of the compass....as is communism....but you knew that.

It's called a spelling mistake. What's YOUR excuse for being an idiot? Me calling someone anti-American for being anti-American or unAmerican for being unAmerican has nothing to do with authoritarianism....idiot.....AND I HAVE NEVER CALLED SOMEONE ANTI- OR UNaMERICAN FOR NOT SUPPORTING OUR DEAR LEADER....YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT. Why don't you actually go off and LEARN what authoritarianism actually is before you talk shit about what you know not.