liberal supremes vote to take private property

[gardenweasel]

yep.....just made a fellow take 150 grand for waterfront property in connecticut.....because it could be seeen to increase "the tax base"...

it`s not for a dam...or some public project...it`s

to "gentrify" the area......and make more revenues for the government...

take some poor sot`s home....and build mansions...to enrich the tax base...

that`s utterly incredible....

the implications are staggering....

watch as churches,who have tax exempt status,are taken....

special interests rule.......

the government deciding what`s best for people....who can live where....

that`s why the courts are so important...

socialism...

 

[AR182]

what can you buy for $150,000 in connecticut....

it's sickening !!

 

[smurphy]

"Liberal" is not a fair word here. Considering it's the same group of idiots who just took away medical marijuana - you can't call them liberal. I guarantee the majority of Liberals in this country are outraged over such a clear violation of personal rights for the benefit of a private capital venture.

This case is outrageous! Everything I ever learned about proper use of eminent domain and the 5th Amendment is turned upside down with this one.

Hey - I'm willing to roll the dice with Bush appointed judges over this farce of a court at this point. How much worse could they be?

 

[smurphy]

I honestly don't know which justices are considered more liberal than the others, but the dissenting votes in this case came from O'Conner, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas.

I guess the other justices were smoking the weed that they are keeping from cancer patients.

 

[gardenweasel]

smurph...i`m glad you agree....i don`t get this one....

i don`t see how right thinking people can justify this kind of crap...

these were the more liberal judges.....that`s the truth...

it looks like the "more liberal" bunch of the group didn`t see it for the "little guy" this time around.....

this is an amazing precedent....i don`t see how this can stand...

saw this being discussed on the news and they had some big real estate mogul defending the action....and one of the home owners on the other side of the debate...whew...

i was trying to think of how best to describe this ruling....

i was thinking that this is just plain "un-american"...

 

[bjfinste]

On almost every political issue I have an opinion on, whether it be abortion, taxes, death penalty, medical marijuana, etc., I can at least *see* the other side. I won't agree, but will at least understand where they are coming from.

But on this ruling, I find it absoutely mind-boggling. I've read 3-4 stories on it from different web sites... WTF is the court thinking?? I just can't see any rationale for ruling the way it did.

 

[Englishman]

This is an awful, frightening decision that should scare every American, whichever political side they are on.

I'm disgusted at this great country..........everyone should just stop and think about what this decision really means for them.

Now "local officals" can force you to sell your property!!! Good grief, here in New Jersey the vast majority of our local officals end up in prison!!

This is by far the worst decision by the SC I can ever remember, truly shockingly unamerican.

 

[kosar]

On almost every political issue I have an opinion on, whether it be abortion, taxes, death penalty, medical marijuana, etc., I can at least *see* the other side. I won't agree, but will at least understand where they are coming from.

But on this ruling, I find it absoutely mind-boggling. I've read 3-4 stories on it from different web sites... WTF is the court thinking?? I just can't see any rationale for ruling the way it did.

Ditto.

 

[saint]

This is an awful, frightening decision that should scare every American, whichever political side they are on.

I'm disgusted at this great country..........everyone should just stop and think about what this decision really means for them.

Now "local officals" can force you to sell your property!!! Good grief, here in New Jersey the vast majority of our local officals end up in prison!!

This is by far the worst decision by the SC I can ever remember, truly shockingly unamerican.

My sentiments exactly.

This is besides the point, but 150 grand for waterfront in CT?? That is absolutely ludicrous.

This is obviously a way for municipalities to "develop" areas-that's code for we can put something in to replace what's there to garner more taxes--multi-tenant condos and retail and so on. It's simple math-more tenants, more revenue more taxes.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Justices Stevens-Souter-Breyer Bader and Ginsberg or the most liberal--Day-O'Conner-Kennedy are considered Moderate--

You tell me WHO"S for the little guy???

Want to get rid of these liberal activist judges?? remember this ordeal on election day.

 

[dawgball]

I think you will be hard pressed to find someone that agrees with this ruling unless they are a RE developer who is inside the city's pockets.

 

[ocelot]

I totally agree with every real American on this one -- what the hell are these clowns thinking?

A reread of the Constitution might be in order for these d*ckwads.

 

[dr. freeze]

a decade and a half ago communism was defeated as the Berlin wall came down

many decades before however, it had already taken root somewhere else

5 black robed lawyers attest to this a couple days ago in New London, Connecticut

they as well as others are systematically destroying America from within

the day is nigh when we all be manservants for the government

the leftists in Congress are doing all they can to obstruct judges as Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas from taking back the courts from these wacked out judges

 

[kosar]

Justices Stevens-Souter-Breyer Bader and Ginsberg or the most liberal--Day-O'Conner-Kennedy are considered Moderate--

You tell me WHO"S for the little guy???

Want to get rid of these liberal activist judges?? remember this ordeal on election day.

Kennedy is a conservative and O'Conner dissented, but I understand your point.

What election day are you talking about?

 

[Nosigar]

This is an awful, frightening decision that should scare every American, whichever political side they are on.

I'm disgusted at this great country..........everyone should just stop and think about what this decision really means for them.

Don't be disgusted at the country. There are no true representatives of the people in government and too few defenders of the constitution in the courts.
As many of us know this is a decision of the neo-socialists and their agenda. The "Looking out for the little guy" people. Guess what is the best way to destroy our country form within? Destroy our values and destroy our inalienable rights. The right to private property is the BASIC foundation of this country. It has allowed us and continues to allow us to create wealth and true progress without the fear of losing it all to a government sponsored thug (as occurs in many countries in ours beautiful and homogeneous world). The neo-socialists (sometimes now referred to as the Democratic party) is out to take away that that is precious to us by the way of lawfully unlawful decisions. When they're done destroying the judeo-christian church, the military, traditional morality, the right to life itself by decisions uttered by those in black robes and 3 piece legal suits who work the least and and lack any basic reasoning skills, guess who will be ripe to be taken over by the populist, amoral and anti-western thinkers?
Yep, now you know. The Neo-socialists. Anything that is traditional will be and has been attacked.

That's why I thank the "moderate-centrists" who would be outraged at an "unfairness" to any individual minority representative, but who will allow the desecration of centuries of culture of millions of decent law-abiding people all in the name of being "fair" and politically correct. Give them your thanks... or your disgust.

 

[ocelot]

Well Nosigar, I don't necessarily disagree with all you say but I don't believe the case here could be interpreted to be "looking out for the little guy" and is the exact opposite of that.

BTW, I kind of like the NeoSocialist moniker as it goes well alongside NeoCon.

 

[Nosigar]

Well Nosigar, I don't necessarily disagree with all you say but I don't believe the case here could be interpreted to be "looking out for the little guy" and is the exact opposite of that.

BTW, I kind of like the NeoSocialist moniker as it goes well alongside NeoCon.

Sorry, I meant that the neo-socialist propaganda is that they're "looking out for the little guy". Of course, until they are no longer useful. As in this case.

 

[smurphy]

I do believe every judge that voted yes for this measure don't deserve their seat. I don't see this as some liberal agenda though. It makes no sense from any side of politics. If anything it benefits devleopers, which are more likely to be conservatives.

And remember, this is the same court that just shot down medical marijuana - an issue considered to be on the liberal side of the fence.

I don't know what to make of them except they are out of control and are obviously not looking out for this country's interest or any intent of the Constitution.

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

I think what they voted for was that the issue was up for the states to decide and not that a landgrab is legal. Some states already have it as a law in the state constitution.

Really a copout by the court as this is exactly what they were supposed to defend.

Anybody read the transcripts of the decision?

 

[Englishman]

BBC:

you are not quite right - this decision gives LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES the right to declare Eminent Domain for private developers - not simply state governments.

Think about that...some tinpot little Hitler in your local town hall can take your property - I'm not exaggerating here, this will happen, and often.