Thank you, USSC

The city of Hollywood, Florida must just love the current make up of the US supreme court. if it weren't for the justices and their infinite wisdom the city wouldn't be able to violate property rights so easily in order to turn a quick buck.

is this slope getting slippery?

This slope was made out of grease to begin with.

At which point do you realize your government is broken, and take steps to correct it?

Does anyone honestly think that the majority of people in a city would vote "yes" when described the process of eminent domain, and asked if they support it?

And if this is the case, how can the government still be "for the people"?


It just blows my mind that people tolerate this, or feel powerless to change it, so they accept it.

How often do these things end up in a firefight?

George W. and his brother the Gov.

And if this is the case, how can the government still be "for the people"?

Sure, we're all equal.......but pigs are more equal. :mad:

OK - i know some of you like Howard Dean, but WTF??? yesterday i heard him calling in to two different shows on Air America. I'm not sure who the host of the first one was - it was a guy. but the second one was Randi Rhoades.

Dean was pitching the website/pledgesite he has set up so that you can have $$$ auto withdrawn from your account everymonth to be spent combatting the Republicans. OK, nothing new there. but then he went on a little tirade about the "neo-con supreme court" and "bush's justices" and their decision that caused a little old lady in New England to lose her home so that a Casino could be built by developers who, no doubt, contributed heavily to bushes reelection campaign.

what the hell? if that is a neo-con packed bench i'd like to know how. none of them has been appointed by Bush. the two justices that most left leaning individuals bemoan voted against it. it was the traditionally left of center justices who voted in favor of the eminent domain decision.

that, of course, didn't stop Dean from asking for money to stop this stripping of your property rights by the republicans. it also didn't stop Rhoades from burying her tongue further up Dean's rectum. but what the hell does truth matter, right?

I heard he was doing that. Disappointing. I suspect that the decision will be used more often by state and local Republican governments than Democratic ones, but you certainly can't place the court decision on the conservatives in the court. I looked around a bit for his explanation, but couldn't find any references a week or tow ago.

The explanation is that Howard Dean is batshit. We evil neocons have been trying to tell you that ever since the Democratic primaries.

Dean is no more Batshit then the hard right nutjobs. the reason that i am so frustrated by this is that after Kerry's big fizzle, i was really truly hopeful that the leadership of the democratic party might stop and think "hey, running further to the left hasn't worked, maybe we should consider returning to our more moderate roots". with Dean's behavior i seriously doubt that is going to happen before the next election. i would really like to see the D's put out some quality candidates that moderate conservatives could look at as an alternative to what they are getting from the "conservative" GOP.

What's scary is that while most republicans I know personally are not taken in by the far far right wing, Howard Dean was the "best and brightest" of his party. Now, even Al Gore's stock has risen considerably, and he's talked about as the alternative nominee in '08, should Hillary become unelectable by then.

Al Gore and Howard Dean?

things are looking quite rosy for the republican party.

rosy, eh?

who's on deck for the R's?

lookout123 wrote:

the reason that i am so frustrated by this is that after Kerry's big fizzle, i was really truly hopeful that the leadership of the democratic party might stop and think "hey, running further to the left hasn't worked, maybe we should consider returning to our more moderate roots".

Why? Did you think that Kerry ran farther to the left? Kerry was Mr. Moderate Roots.

IMO the problem was that nobody knew who Kerry really was. it was hard to tell whether he was really a moderate trying to reach out and appeal to the hard left or whether he was super liberal trying to grab the moderate vote.

everything about him was too engineered.

What did he do to appeal to the hard left?

mrnoodle wrote:

Howard Dean was the "best and brightest" of his party. Now, even Al Gore's stock has risen considerably, and he's talked about as the alternative nominee in '08, should Hillary become unelectable by then.

I thought Barack Obama was a strong candidate for 2008 too?

lookout123 wrote:

who's on deck for the R's?

I wouldn't discount the possibility of Jeb running. Seriously.

If Jeb wins, I am going to weep.

And I'm Canadian.

Pataki is gearing up for a run but the rule is you must be an a truly awful human-being from South of the Mason Dixon to get elected in this country. He is sol no matter how good a con man he is. Terrible choices coming our way again this election cycle.

lookout123 wrote:

what the hell? if that is a neo-con packed bench i'd like to know how. none of them has been appointed by Bush. the two justices that most left leaning individuals bemoan voted against it. it was the traditionally left of center justices who voted in favor of the eminent domain decision.

that, of course, didn't stop Dean from asking for money to stop this stripping of your property rights by the republicans. it also didn't stop Rhoades from burying her tongue further up Dean's rectum. but what the hell does truth matter, right?

I don't know. You tell me, Lookout. Is Bush a neocon? One justice, Thomas, I think, was appointed by Bush Sr. Seven of the supremes were appointed by republican presidents - mainly Reagan. So tell me how the two Clinton appointees were able to overwhelm their fellow justices and sneak through this decision about eminent domain in the face of the opposition of the other seven? Was the decision which allowed the Hollywood thing to come down made at some time in the past when the Supreme Court had a majority of justices appointed by dems?

The court is a republican appointed court. Bush is a republican. What's wrong with Dean calling it "Bush's court"? Has Jr made public pronouncements distancing himself from recent court decisions?

What's wrong with a politician asking for campaign contributions from those who agree with his viewpoint? Just what was the decision that allows this particluar land grab and when was it made? It would be nice if you'd inform us of these things before going off on a bad tempered tirade. Why do you listen to talk radio, anyhow? There's better ways to become politically informed, IMO.

And why have you been in such a bad temper lately? Sales down?

Carbonated Brains wrote:

If Jeb wins, I am going to weep.

And I'm Canadian.

That's not actually that surprising--as a percentage, I'd imagine more Canadians (and Europeans, for that matter) would cry than Americans would.

Clodfobble wrote:

...as a percentage, I'd imagine more Canadians (and Europeans, for that matter) would cry than Americans would.

OH NO THEY WOULDN'T! I'm not going Canadian if another freaking Bush wins, I'm going (*dramatic music*) IRISH! :stpaddy:

Dear Mari,
<strike>shut the fuck up you whiny fucking hippy</strike> i sure am glad i took some time to collect my thoughts, because my first instinctual response to you sounded a bit too much like cartman.

What's wrong with Dean calling it "Bush's court"?

if Bush had appointed even one of those justices then it would be legitimate to call it "bush's court". i don't have a problem with Dean raising money, i don't have a problem with Dean despising the recent ruling (as i think most thinking people do). I do have a problem with Dean playing a little slight of hand with the listeners by completely leaving out the fact that the justices that Bush co wants to replicate voted against it and the justices that Bush co isn't so fond of voted in favor of it.
mostly i'm just disappointed because with Dean operating in this manner i don't see much of a chance for the D's to put forward candidates that will draw the moderates (most of the country) away from the extremes (the asshats both parties have been nominating).

So tell me how the two Clinton appointees were able to overwhelm their fellow justices and sneak through this decision about eminent domain in the face of the opposition of the other seven?

<strike>drop the fucking bowl, you</strike> did i say that is what happened? a majority of the court ruled against personal property rights. it wasn't just clinton's two appointees.

Just what was the decision that allows this particluar land grab and when was it made? It would be nice if you'd inform us of these things before going off on a bad tempered tirade.

now see, right here is the problem i've had with you since you've been back. before your exile you would vigorously argue your views, citing outside sources, researching if necessary. since you've been back you've been willing to just jump into any shit and start stirring. IMO many of your posts have been designed just to get people to start kicking you - which, let's face it - this is the cellar and there are plenty of people willing to kick away. if you have something to add - speak up. if you don't follow current events enough to know about this ruling and some of the repurcussions, that's ok - but shut the fuck up. as always, the fastest way to show your ignorance is to talk about things when you have nothing to say.

Why do you listen to talk radio, anyhow? There's better ways to become politically informed, IMO.

because it is background noise - which i need. i can't play music in my office because i will become completely wrapped up in the joy of just listening. overpaid talking heads can be tuned out.

And why have you been in such a bad temper lately? Sales down?

thank you for your concern. fortunately for my family, my sales have been very healthy as more and more people realize that putting their heads in sand doesn't work when planning for their future. i haven't been in a bad mood at all - life has actually been wonderful in my neck of the woods for some time now.

sincerely,
Lookout

Hey, Lookout, seems I can't win for losing. I got jumped on for using too many cites on the "Why do we hate the French thread?". When responding to your post, I couldn't understand what you were PO'ed about. On the one hand you seemed to be blaming the Supremes for the current law on eminent domain, on the other hand you seemed to be defending it.

Lookout123 wrote:

I do have a problem with Dean playing a little slight of hand with the listeners by completely leaving out the fact that the justices that Bush co wants to replicate voted against it and the justices that Bush co isn't so fond of voted in favor of it.

Lookout123 wrote:

did i say that is what happened? a majority of the court ruled against personal property rights. it wasn't just clinton's two appointees.

Here's where you lose me, Lookout. Now maybe everyone else understands what you are saying, but I don't.

You and I tend to be on opposide sides of the political spectrum, so big deal. I can really think of only one post I made where I was out of line and that was in response to something Bruce had posted. I apologized for that post. YOU were the one who couldn't leave it alone.

If you would like to clarify what you are saying here, I would be more than willing to make a thoughtful, RESEARCHED reply and not call you names either.

On the one hand you seemed to be blaming the Supremes for the current law on eminent domain, on the other hand you seemed to be defending it.

i would never defend such a ruling. this is one area where i say that Radar was on the right track and not overreaching in his comments. the USSC has opened the door to large scale theft of private property - whether it happens or not, they've made it possible.

my rant that you don't seem to understand was about Dean playing loose with the reality of that ruling. the justices that the D's typically lift up as being "right thinking" ruled to strip your property rights. Dean is playing it like Bush co got together and screwed the little old lady in new england.

OK, so what you are saying is that while the largely Republican appointed Supreme court DID make this ruling, the odds would be better that a new Bush appointee would be against it, while a Supreme appointed by a democrat would be in favor of it?

Who nominated the court that made the Kelo decision?

In favor:
Stevens / Ford
Kennedy / Reagan
Souter / Bush Sr.
Ginsburg / Clinton
Breyer / Clinton

Against:
O'Connor / Reagan
Rehnquist / Reagan
Scalia / Reagan
Thomas / Bush Sr.

Thank you, UT. That clarifies the subject, immensely! Appreciate it. Interesting break down that, I'll have to think about my reply.

OK, I took a look at the court’s opinion in Kelso, and the Supremes were NOT saying that a governing body can just randomly hand private property over from one individual to another just because the second individual was a council member’s cousin or whatever:

It is further argued that without a bright-line rule
nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen A's
property to citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will
put the property to a more productive use and thus pay
more taxes. Such a one-to-one transfer of property, executed
outside the confines of an integrated development
plan, is not presented in this case. While such an unusual
exercise of government power would certainly raise a
suspicion that a private purpose was afoot, the hypothetical
cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when
they arise. They do not warrant the crafting of an artificial
restriction on the concept of public use.

The written majority opinion then goes on to say:

We emphasize that nothing in our opinion
precludes any State from placing further restrictions
on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States
already impose .public use. requirements that are stricter
than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements
have been established as a matter of state constitutional
law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain
statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings
may be exercised. As the submissions of the parties
and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of
using eminent domain to promote economic development
are certainly matters of legitimate public debate. This
Court's authority, however, extends only to determining
whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a
"public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment
to the Federal Constitution.

The development in question has the purpose of revitalizing and bringing jobs to a blighted urban area. The land will also be used to augment an existing state park and a Coast Guard Museum will be built on one of the parcels of land. The Supremes seemed to base their decision on the fact that the development would bring jobs into the area and that this constituted a “public good.” I think the hypothetical example of condemning a Motel 8 and replacing it with a Hyatt Regency would fail the court’s test of public good, since such a change would not serve to create an appreciable number of new jobs in the community, among other things. After all, if 100 people a night on average need a motel room in a given area, the same 3 maids will clean the rooms, the same one clerk would check people into their rooms etc., regardless if the place was a Motel 8 or some more swank outfit.

I agree that a Bush appointee would probably be more likely to have voted against this decision, but now that I have read it, the Court’s reasoning makes sense to me. I think Dean’s mistake was in joining the mass hysteria that has resulted from a failure to look at just what the Kelso ruling did and did NOT say.

(There, is that researched enough for you, Lookout?)

It's still stealing. GM brought a lot of jobs to Detroit when the gov stole land for them. The neighborhoods are gone and the jobs are gone. Nice work that. Government can fuck up on a scale that no private fool can match.

The sad tale of the American Automobile industry is an entire other story. Did the gov really give Henry Ford the land to build his auto plant on? I never knew that. Yeah, a lot of the workers who came to Detroit were displaced from Appalachia. My grandparents had a very nice bit of farm land where the stupid Blue Grass Ordinance Depot now stands. Why didn't the Feds put the damn thing in Paducah or on top of some useless piece of land elsewhere? I'm no fan of eminent domain, believe me. Just commenting that the Court's decision seems to have been blown out of proportion by the media. What's new? :mad:

Actually, I think I was wrong the Cadillac plant is still there and it only cost 1300 homes, 140 businesses, and 6 churches. The problem I have with the idea of emminent domain is the same one I have with much of American politics. Either party would abandon property rights for the "right" reasons. They just don't care that they're messing with the little guys and sometimes the medium guys lives. People plan and save and build dreams and a way of life but if the local gov can claim an increase in revenue they think you should go somewhere else. Maybe the politicians should be evicted and moved to communities more in line with their vision. :mad:

marichiko wrote:

snip~~ the hypothetical
cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when
they arise. They do not warrant the crafting of an artificial
restriction on the concept of public use ~~ snip

I read that as if you happen to be screwed by the politicians, you can have all the justice you can afford. Of course they have unlimited resources...your taxes....to fight you in court.
If you can afford to file suit, can they still take the property while it drags through the courts? Will the judges who play golf with the politicians stop them from taking it until the thing is settled? Even though the Supremes said your problem can be "confronted", does that guaranty you can get up through the courts to them? Providing your rich of course. But then if your rich they probably wouldn't be screwing you in the first place. :mad:

Well, Bruce, those were the court's words, not mine. Like I said, I am not for a second going to try to defend this whole right of the government to take whatever land catches its fancy. That little bit of land in blue grass country was sweet agricultual land. It was my grandparent's ticket out of the poverty of the Cumberland gap region, payed for in part by a loan from my grandmother's father who had a tiny country store back in Williamsburg, Kentucky. My father and my uncle Leland used to plow that land with a mule. The cash crop of tobacco it yielded was what my family counted on to get through the dark winters of the depression era. The Feds paid my grandparents half what that land was worth, and my grandparents bought another farm on less desirable, less productive land. My father and uncle would go out and shoot squirrels to put meat on the table after that. Me defend eminent domain? I don't think so! Those family stories are still vivid in my mind, even after all this time.