Maybe the worst Supreme Court decision in 30 years [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

lsbets

06-23-2005, 12:43 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

So much for private property rights. Cities can seize private property for "public" project like shopping malls that generate tax revenue. 5-4 decision. Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsberg, Souter, and Breyer were the majority. The dissent was O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Renquist. I thought the Declaration of Independance talked about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with the pursuit of happiness having been born out of the term property, which meant freedom from the government seizing your property. This ruling is an outrage.

Bobby

06-23-2005, 12:55 PM

yea, your right. Gotta be the worst decision. eminent domain bullshit.

betchatoo

06-23-2005, 12:56 PM

lsbets:

We're on the same side on this one. This will effect the poor and the middle class to the benefit of the city. Just who the hell makes up the city?

lsbets

06-23-2005, 01:09 PM

Bobby

06-23-2005, 01:14 PM

This is kinda the problem with capitalism. Money rules over everything. Money talks and bs walks. isn't that the saying? something like that. that doesn't make sense.

Anywya,

Screw the people. Anything for more tax revenues. Give em 20 yrs and the govt and big corporations like Walmart can do anything they want.

lsbets

06-23-2005, 01:27 PM

Bobby - when government seizes property for business it ain't capitalism, its statism.

J-bred

06-23-2005, 01:59 PM

The 2nd Amendment ain't about duck hunting.

As Claire Wolfe would say...

IT'S TIME!!!

Wiley

06-23-2005, 02:41 PM

Scary stuff Isbets. This is an insane ruling. I hope the bozos who voted for it, Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsberg, Souter, and Breyer all live in an area primed for urban devopment and their own ruling comes back to bite them. Throw them out of their mansions for a new much needed shopping mall. IMHO local officials are more likely not to know what is best for a community and are more likely to be influenced by the big pocket contributors and developers.

JustRalph

06-23-2005, 02:48 PM

This is a damn joke. Insurrection anybody? The most awful decision I can recall

Bubbles

06-23-2005, 02:55 PM

Wow. These people are idiots, plain and simple.

I can't talk, gotta run, they're tearing down my house for a new food court...:D

PaceAdvantage

06-23-2005, 03:10 PM

I agree. This decision is awful. I betcha all the anti-Bush folks are shocked at the total lack of support for this decision by those they classify as "neocons" and "right wing wackos"

I predict a lot of folks will implement their perceived 2nd amendment rights over this decision...

lsbets

06-23-2005, 03:24 PM

The only reason I didn't say worst ever is there were a few dreadful decisions re:slavery and then the 14th amendment in the past.

I have a serious question for those I normally disagree with:

If Rhenquist retires in a few weeks, would you rather have someone like him, who dissented in both the medical marijuana case and in this case, or a justice like Breyer or Ginsburg who voted in the majority in both of those cases?

It's not activist vs. non activist here, its government vs. people, and of the three who dissented in both of these cases, we might lose two to retirement very soon.

JustRalph

06-23-2005, 03:30 PM

If Rhenquist retires in a few weeks, would you rather have someone like him, who dissented in both the medical marijuana case and in this case, or a justice like Breyer or Ginsburg who voted in the majority in both of those cases?

I want Robert Bork!!!!!!!!!!!!

Observer

06-23-2005, 03:52 PM

This makes me sick. Most of us are breaking our backs trying to get by with what we've got .. so many of us working at more than one job .. and they come along and decide local governments can shatter your life for a mall or hotel to generate tax revenue.

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

schweitz

06-23-2005, 04:37 PM

An absolutely unbelievable decision---what were they thinking? :mad:

OTM Al

06-23-2005, 04:53 PM

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.........

Suff

06-23-2005, 05:42 PM

Its like the Cowboys new stadium. They are claiming eminent domain to seize a bunch of 70-80 thousand dollar houses. THe people who live there have no choice - they have to leave their homes so Jerry Jones can get a free football stadium. It's a joke, and the increasing power of the state and the seeming indifference to it from politicians is alarming.

Emminent domain is a common occurence. In heavily congested areas, Govt has taken property for things such as schools, transit stops, Bus depots, power sub-stations and city facilties that provide VITAL services to a community.

What this ruling does is expand the power to Corporations.

The ruling is fresh and I plan on reading it in length, however my immediatte thoughts are that this is not a surprise.

This is where we are heading in America. Every man, woman, child, company, city, town, and county for themsleves. Free market pressure. Highest Bidder. If a town can make money by having a more taxable asset on thier land....so be it. That's the conservatives view of America....and this is the ramifications of that ideology. Money talks, citizens walk.

lsbets

06-23-2005, 05:52 PM

Emminent domain is a common occurence. In heavily congested areas, Govt has taken property for things such as schools, transit stops, Bus depots, power sub-stations and city facilties that provide VITAL services to a community.

Suff, the key thing in this case is it was not for a school or city services. This is a huge expansion of eminent domain, and it is just flat wrong. I am not surprised at the four dissenters, but I am surprised that not one liberal stood up for the people getting screwed. However, in reading some of the prominent Dem websites this afternoon, the consensus there seems to be that this is okay because it benefis the whole community. I am also surprised by that. The feeling over there seems to be the individual doesn't really matter in these cases.

schweitz

06-23-2005, 05:52 PM

If a town can make money by having a more taxable asset on thier land....so be it. That's the conservatives view of America....and this is the ramifications of that ideology. Money talks, citizens walk.

Not this conservative's view nor any that I know.

lsbets

06-23-2005, 06:02 PM

That's the conservatives view of America....and this is the ramifications of that ideology. Money talks, citizens walk.

Suff - all of the conservatives dissented from the majority opinion. The liberals on the court said this is okay. Man, how do you come up with stuff like this? The libs do it and you blame conservatives.

Read the reactions and responses out there. Conservatives are outraged by the Court stepping on individual private property rights, while libs are celebrating this decision because it can be used to benefit the community.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/23/10559/5709

"As first glace, you may think that giving private homeowner property to a private corporations is a bad thing. And it very well might be in many cases. However, if the Court had ruled differently and NOT allowed local governments to do this, it would have been a disaster for local governments to build for the community (including when the purpose is to help the environment, build affordable housing, create jobs, etc.). It would have sacrificed needed community power at the hands of the sort of property-rights extremism frequently displayed by right-wing libertarian types."

Right wing property rights extremism? Give me a break - its called your right to own your own stuff. Its a pretty simple concept. Suff, the only support out there for this decision that I have seen comes from hard core liberals.

46zilzal

06-23-2005, 06:57 PM

60 Minutes did a show on this and found that the mayor of a town was going after some houses as "blighted" and then the moderator reviewed HER OWN HOME and based on the same criteria, hers could be called blighted just as well.

BAD decision

Suff

06-23-2005, 07:01 PM

Suff - all of the conservatives dissented from the majority opinion. The liberals on the court said this is okay. Man, how do you come up with stuff like this? The libs do it and you blame conservatives.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/23/10559/5709

.

Writing for the Majority Opinion.
John Paul Stevens

Born: April 20, 1920
Party: Republican
Time served: 29 years, 6 months, 4 days
Position: associate Justice
Nominated by: Ford
Commissioned: December 17, 1975
Sworn in: December 19, 1975

Voting with him and making up 2/3rds of the majority opinion.

David H. Souter

Overview

Born: September 17, 1939
Party: Republican
Time served: 14 years, 8 months, 14 days
Position: associate Justice
Nominated by: Bush
Commissioned: October 3, 1990
Sworn in: October 9, 1990

Anthony Kennedy

Born: July 23, 1936
Party: Republican
Time served: 17 years, 4 months, 5 days
Position: associate Justice
Nominated by: Reagan
Commissioned: February 11, 1988
Sworn in: February 18, 1988 .

Thats how I come up with it. How do you come up with it? That Members of the Republican party, who were appointed by Republican Presidents, and who heard the case from a Republican lawyer, and ruled in favor of Big Business Republicans....are now Liberals? :faint:

lsbets

06-23-2005, 07:07 PM

LOL - man Suff, you change things to suit you every time.

Who are the conservative justices on the court? Hint - their names are Rhenwuist, Scalia, Thomas, and O'Connor. Who are the liberals? Ginsberg and Breyer. Yes, those 3 were appointed by Republicans - just shows that its a diverse party representing differing interests. The conservatives had nothing to do with this opinion. The libs are happy as hell with the decision. One day you'll catch on Suff, I don't know if it will be one day soon, but one day you will. ;)

Suff

06-23-2005, 07:29 PM

LOL - man Suff, you change things to suit you every time.
Yes, those 3 were appointed by Republicans - The libs are happy as hell with the decision. One day you'll catch on Suff, I don't know if it will be one day soon, but one day you will. ;)

Your very small at times.. You must go to the root.

Who brought the case?

Michael Joplin, President,New London Development Corp.

Big Republican donor. he is. So's corcoran , jennings. Matter of fact,, I am 99% sure the Corcorans are cousins of the Bush's.

This is what Joplin said about the home owners legals reps. (who are LIBERAL) really....the ability of republicans to make anythng up is comical..

But according to New London Development Corp. President Michael Joplin, people turned against eminent domain in New London only because of the public relations efforts of the Institute for Justice, the law firm that represents property owners fighting to save their homes. (“New Londoners back change in city government,” Jan. 16.) Mr. Joplin blames the Institute for problems of his and his failed organization's own making.

Mr. Joplin also states that NLDC has focused on “legalities.” By fighting over “legalities” for years, at whatever the cost, the NLDC has not focused on the wisdom, morality, or constitutionality of its actions.

I show you three repubilcan appointed judges, who belong to the Repubilican party.. and sided with a Republican lawyer and somehow , someway...your not able to see the truth.
http://www.nolandgrab.org/archives/2005/01/
http://www.nldc.org/

Isbets... I can only warn you. They republicans just made a move on your home. I can only suggest you consider your allegiance. I know what sis going on....been saying it for 5 years. They're coming for us....and not in a Gay Marriage kind of way. Worse. Much Worse.

PaceAdvantage

06-23-2005, 07:36 PM

They're coming for us....and not in a Gay Marriage kind of way. Worse. Much Worse.

Will they be utilizing the Mexican Army in their struggle?

lsbets

06-23-2005, 07:41 PM

Kreed

06-23-2005, 08:54 PM

i gotta cry for america here. what the F: five-to-4, so close, but we've all lost
by a head, and who among us dont recall how it changed things. i just dont
care anymore --- hey hey --- dont you believe that, fellow lovers of mankind.
i think sometimes the Feds must make rules for EVERY STATE, but i still want
States' Rights. this Bush wants 1 set of rules, but it can't ever work. That's
the beauty of it all, that states' got their personae. Can U ever imagine them
guys in Tupelo gettin a manicure like me in NYC? hehe, get my gloVes ready.
or my Vespa. i like people.

GeTydOn

06-23-2005, 09:08 PM

Future of America = everyone living in hotels + working @ malls they shop at.

What more could anyone want???
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Suff

06-23-2005, 09:09 PM

Suff - you said "conservative" then I showed you who the conservatives rae and how they voted. Michael Bloomberg is Republican too, so what? He sure isn't a conservative. You constantly try to paint conservatives in the "evil light" yet you clearly don't even know who is and who is not conservative. I don't know any conservative who claims the three judges you pointed to as one of their own. I don't know any conservative who is happy with this decision. The only people I have seen happy with this have been liberals. How you fail to comprehend that is beyond me.

So again SUff - how did the liberal justices vote? For the taking of property.
How did the conservative justices vote? Against the taking of property.

Its pretty simple Suff, the ones lined up against you are the ones you think are your friends.

Izzie, I don't want to fight you on this. We both agree the ruling is something we need to take a hard look at. I took exception with your immediatte reference to the "liberal justices". That's a wrong and dangerous trend amongst conservative's. I regret that small remark I made to you. Out of line and I Dick Durbin you on that.

I need to look at it closer. I was reacting to your point without reading up on the case close enough to take that strong a stand. The Court used a case from 1954. I have the case bookmarked, and will read it. I'll read majority and dissenting opinions, a couple of writers, and get back to you on the machinations of the decision.

At the same time... The benefactors are MALL DEVELOPERS...and keep in mind... this land is NEAR FOXWOODS..... and also, no matter how you slice it, the majority opinion was written By a Republican, 3 of the 5 justices in the majority are Republicans. The losing parties were poor homeowners, and lower class hard working Americans. How you can squeeze that into Liberalism so quickly and so easily.....pissed me off.

Suff

06-23-2005, 09:13 PM

btw... these justice's are known figures now. We see them operate thanks to C-SPAN and CABLE news... We see them at Dinners, Commencement speechs, round tables....

It would'nt take much to convince me that Scalia and/or Thomas, only sat down because they KNEW it had 5. Why give the people any bait. You guys vote this way, we'll go that way, and down the road we'll take a Bullet for you....

These Justices are Intellectual Politicians...

J-bred

06-23-2005, 09:14 PM

"democrat" this and "republican" that

"conservative" this and "liberal" that

quit putting these labels on politicians

and beating each other up

there's only one word to describe all of them

"scum"

they got you fighting over nonsense

when the people should be uniting to throw all the crooked bastards out

there are good people... regular folks... in every part of the spectrum

the problem is these clowns we keep voting for, because they can hit your hot buttons with meaningless propaganda

if it's a D or an R... DON'T VOTE FOR IT

Kreed

06-23-2005, 09:29 PM

hey call me. right ON Br0. actually, I NEVER thought of your explanation.
I think you're very novel. i gotta think about what maybe the Best Conspiracy,
Ever. Distract us, Invade us. ummm, maybe, an UnExpected Consequence?
i dunno, but if you're correct, J-Bred, keep my Blow gun ready. hehe.

GeTydOn

06-23-2005, 09:31 PM

keep in mind... this land is NEAR FOXWOODS.....

Doesn't this ruling open up all of the U.S.?
:confused:

Suff

06-23-2005, 09:48 PM

Doesn't this ruling open up all of the U.S.?
:confused:

This ruling was on a particular case. A group of 70 homeowners in New London Ct Vs The City of New London. The defendant was actually The New London Development Corporation. The city had already approved the deal, and only because the homeowners Counter-sued the city did the case reach the Conn. and US Supreme Court.

Essentially this case was between land developers and the land owners. The city of New London was only the defendant because they were the original ruling authority on the development.

This sets a precedent. That is the issue. There are hundreds of similar cases in the lower courts. Those essentially were decided today as well.

kenwoodallpromos

06-23-2005, 10:03 PM

This is the socialist majority allowing houses AND businesses to be stolen for whatever purpose the rulers want.

Tom

06-23-2005, 10:07 PM

The Ku Kux Kourt is a national disgrace. A lifetime appointment is ridiculous - it needs to be changed. There is abslutlely no accountability on the court. Our laws are being rewritten by people un-elected to any office.

Thiis is a perect example of government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations. The average working stiuff in this country has no represetnation at all. Dem, Repub, they are all rich bastards and they are all in it for themselves. And they all suc big time.

DJofSD

06-23-2005, 10:34 PM

The very foundations of old English law and an underlaying principal of American democracy rest upon the concept of private property.

With this ruling, the idea that you as an individual and your personal property are separate from and superior to the state is severly threatened. Do you remember the expression 'a man's home is his castle?'

Now, it's only a matter of time before those that believe the ends justifies the means will be attacking prop 13 here in California.

This ruling comes very, very close to my own personal life. My family's business is already threatened by local government. Now, it's just a matter of time before it is for all intents and purposes, taken by the government.

This republican has just quit the party.

DJofSD

P.S. To Suff: after you take a look at the ruling and you absorb the details, what do you plan to do?

NoDayJob

06-24-2005, 12:04 AM

This republican has just quit the party.

DJofSD

:lol: Join my new party "UBTOA". :lol:

NDJ

Suff

06-24-2005, 09:04 AM

DJofSD

P.S. To Suff: after you take a look at the ruling and you absorb the details, what do you plan to do?

Good question. Sometimes I tell myself I'm doing enough just by paying attention.

Last night I clicked all over the TV trying to get some views and/or information on the Supreme court ruling. Nothing of substance anywhere. I had to go the Supreme court WWW site. And the NY Times has some great links to the case, if your looking/

All I could get was the Missing Girl in Aruba. Before that, I had to take my daily dose of Michael Jackson to get the news. America is asleep.

Amanda Hollaway, Robert Blake, Michael Jackson, American Idol. Americam Idol gets 80 million viewers while worthy and needed information is distributued to the few that seek it out.

I don't know what I'll do DJ. Probably nothing.

OTM Al

06-24-2005, 09:18 AM

Suff is right. The "news" of today has become pure infotainment. A democracy cannot function if the people do not have access to the information they need to make decisions. It seems more and more that news organizations seem to think they need to tell us what to think rather than presenting the facts and letting us decide.

The lifetime appointment I still believe is a necessary check to the potential of politically motivated tampering with the courts. There is however a very simple answer to this problem. The Supreme Court had to rule on this because apparantly the existing law was evidently not clear enough on the issue. The answer....call you representatives and insist on a law that insures further protection to property owners. Actual law supercedes judicial precident.

lsbets

06-24-2005, 09:48 AM

I was driving the kids to school this morning listening to the news, and I thought to myself "Are the only people who ever go missing pretty white girls?"

kenwoodallpromos

06-24-2005, 12:04 PM

A reminder- this year the Supreme Court: Let stand hearsay to kill someone; let Int'l opinion set death penalty age; and destroy right to own ant private property.
The right to own property is now a privledge allowed only when granted by all levels of govt.

Suff

06-24-2005, 12:14 PM

A reminder- this year the Supreme Court: Let stand hearsay to kill someone.

I'll give you 100 bucks if you can prove the Supreme Court heard any agruements on the Schiavo case.

It was heard by the Circuit Court in Atlanta, not the Supreme Court....and they heard a case on State's rights....Nothing to do with the Schiavo's medical condition.

Backing up to your other point... Socialists have always been a Big fan of Shopping malls, and Land Grabs... Make another 100 if you back that up.

Suff

06-24-2005, 12:19 PM

The lifetime appointment I still believe is a necessary check to the potential of politically motivated tampering with the courts. There is however a very simple answer to this problem. The Supreme Court had to rule on this because apparantly the existing law was evidently not clear enough on the issue. The answer....call you representatives and insist on a law that insures further protection to property owners. Actual law supercedes judicial precident.

AL

It brings me no pleasure to say...... But Europe, and France in Particular just gave us a civics lesson in Democracy recently.

Before the Vote, the govt mailed a copy of the Constitution to every single citizen. 80% report reading it, or discussing it with friends. Turn out was much higher than USA's. It is happening more places than you'd think.

Still the fact is, we are a great country. If the Citizens were to do a "crazy Ivan" and tack left.....we'd be much better off in many ways.

check this out for 10 minutes

http://www.idea.int/vt/index.cfm

Suff

06-24-2005, 12:21 PM

The whole site is great.. But if your looking specifically for Voter turnout worldwide click here

http://www.idea.int/vt/survey/voter_turnout_pop2.cfm

46zilzal

06-24-2005, 03:29 PM

46zilzal

06-24-2005, 03:59 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fortune500/retail_eminentdomain/index.htm?cnn=yes

At the HEART of all things here is that the goverenment NO MATTER WHAT PARTY IS IN POWER is fleecing the public and NO one is doing anything about it

Suff

06-24-2005, 06:46 PM

Crack a beer or pour a coffee. a 63 page sleeper.

The Docket

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-108.htm

The Case

http://nytimes.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/04-108/04-108.mer.pet.pdf

Secretariat

06-24-2005, 07:07 PM

I wanted to read the opinions and dissents before commenting. I find myself in the awkward situation of agreeing with Scalia and Thomas on an opinion. The argument made by Stevens and Kennedy were unconvincing to me, and do not meet the "Takings Clause" of the 5th amendment as I read it.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf

kenwoodallpromos

06-24-2005, 07:22 PM

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable ***benefits to the community****, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority."
Look up in your dictionary the words community, commune, communion, Communism, and from the bible book of Acts "All things in common" and you will find the roots of Communism and the modified Socialism. It is no coincidence Karl Marx's dad was a catholic priest.
Supreme Court- by "let stand" I am saying did not hear the case, so the circuit court decision stands.

kenwoodallpromos

06-24-2005, 07:27 PM

Suff

06-24-2005, 07:40 PM

Fascism = Government takes your land and gives it to a corporation.

Communism = Government takes your land and keeps it.

DJofSD

06-24-2005, 07:41 PM

43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Yes, and the Bible also say 'render unto Caesar what is Caeser's and unto God what is God's.'

What's the point? That the Bible says it's OK to take property when the end justifies the means?

DJofSD

schweitz

06-24-2005, 08:03 PM

wonatthewire1

06-24-2005, 08:23 PM

There are a couple of things to keep in mind >

1. A seizure can occur anytime a municipality feels it can generate more revenue from another use. Therefore, it is much more expansive than simply emminant domain.

2. The SC was deciding if the situation was unconstitutional which in reality it is not specified in the Constitution, thus is not unconstitutional per the majority.

3. The states do not have to follow the ruling > 2 currently have legislative prohibitions (GA and OK) and one (NJ) has a legal precident (McCorlin v Trump in Atlantic City).

DJofSD

06-24-2005, 08:53 PM

2. The SC was deciding if the situation was unconstitutional which in reality it is not specified in the Constitution, thus is not unconstitutional per the majority.

That's not how read it.

From the opinion: We granted certiorari to determine whether a city’s decision to take property for the purpose of economic development satisfies the “public use” requirement of the Fifth Amendment. 542 U. S. ___ (2004).

From the Tech Law Journal web site: Writ of Certiorari. A decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court.

DJofSD

JPinMaryland

06-24-2005, 11:43 PM

Suffs comment on Fascism/Communism would have saved me endless hours of consternation in world cultures class.

hcap

06-25-2005, 07:41 AM

From Earlier days...

Stealing Home - May 9, 1997
Texas Observer

George W. Bush loves baseball. And why not? After all, baseball has been very good to the governor.

When it comes to power, the governor is a true triple-threat. Consider his record: (1) His initial baseball investment of $600,000 carries the current potential of a 2,500 percent return. (2) Through savvy P.R. and political maneuvering, he and his partners have persuaded a city and the state to directly subsidize a facility for their business. (3) Not content with taxpayer subsidies, he and his fellow owners have also successfully used the power of government to take land from other private citizens so it could be used for their own private purposes.

....Bush and his partners in the Rangers convinced Arlington officials to:

pass a half cent sales tax to pay for 70 percent of the stadium; use the government's powers of eminent domain to condemn land the Rangers couldn't or didn't want to buy on the open market; give the Rangers control over what happens in and around the stadium; allow the Rangers to buy the stadium (which cost $191 million to construct) for just $60 million; finally, after twelve years as the sole occupant and primary beneficiary of the stadium project, the Rangers, a privately owned business, can take title to the most expensive stadium ever built in Texas for the $60 million worth of rent and upkeep they will have already paid the city.

... yet the Rangers ball club, a private corporation, receive all future revenues to be generated from that same land. The Rangers now own development rights over the entire 270-acre complex, including an amphitheater, office buildings, shops and restaurants. In addition, the master agreement between the City of Arlington and the Rangers gives the team control over almost everything that occurs on the property. "The Rangers shall collect and retain as their income all concessions, parking, signage, sublease revenues, naming allowances, and any and all other revenue produced within the Facilities," says the agreement.

Maybe the Supremes will become a NEW baseball franchise? Think about it.
Nine justices?
Bush as umpire obviously.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/82/200px-Baseball_umpire_2004.jpg

Who's on first? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

http://www.robertbryce.com/050997.htm

hcap

06-25-2005, 07:58 AM

And

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/26450p-25068c.html

..Two hours southwest of Arlington, in the grimy office of his Whitney, Tex., used-car lot, Bucky Fanning puffs on a cigarette and talks about how his family got the short end of the stadium stick, how the city of Arlington seized his family's horse ranch in 1991 and gave it to the Texas Rangers. There were winners in the deal, he says - among them George W. Bush and his partners, and Tom Hicks, the wealthy real estate developer they sold the team to - and there were losers.

He was one of the losers.

... According to court documents from lawsuits filed by Fanning and other Arlington landowners, the Bush partnership wasn't just interested in baseball: The group hoped to profit by developing property around the new park.

And

... When confronted with the seamy details of the land grab, Bush professed ignorance. But Tom Schieffer, the team's president, has testified that he kept Bush aware of the land transfers. In October 1990, Bush also let slip to a reporter for the Fort Worth Star- Telegram, "The idea of making a land play, absolutely, to plunk the field down in the middle of a big piece of land, that's kind of always been the strategy."

http://www.topplebush.com/article7_busdeal.shtml

Can he be impeached for grabbing land?
Probably found WMD'S on Bucky Fanning's land.
Now grabbing Iraq? I seem to detect a pattern.

:bang:

Tom

06-25-2005, 11:50 AM

So now nobody in America has the right to own property. In small hick-towns, a 5 man board need only have three of your neighbors, who you pissed off at a barbeque decide to take away your propery.

We have lost one our most basic, fundamental rights, becaseu of the opiinon of 5 unelected, enaccountable people. 5 Brain dead, evil people, people who have just staged a coup. They have destroyed America. They have stolen our rights and I have yet to hear Bush come to our defense. Oh, wati, that;s right, Bush was already taken over by big business through eminent domain and no longer represents real American.

Put the flag away boys, it don't wave over a free country anymore. Bring home the troops, they aren't defending America anymore.
America was sold in a yard sale this week.
New flag - dark green background with a gold dollar sign in the center.

America RIP
1776 - 2005

How many soldier fighting in the Middle East right now, or worse yet, how many families who lost their father or mother over their will fall victim to this Ku Klux Kourt's total insanity and ignorance?
The war is no longer in Irq, it here, it is on the step of th Kourthouse and on the mall in Washington.
The time has come to take back the goverment from the occuppiers, no matter what it takes.

The enemy is not Al Qeda...it is the goverment of the United States.

Where is the little piss ant McCain on this? Where is that coward Kerry? Where is that tub of lard Micheal Moore?

The inappropriate comments by Durkin last week are now suddenly appropriate - this country has sunk to the level of Russia, Nazi Germany, Phol Pot. The liberal dream has been realized - ultimate big government.

America just stepped backwards 500 years. :mad:

wonatthewire1

06-25-2005, 11:59 AM

The liberal dream has been realized - ultimate big government.

Doubt that it is a "liberal" dream > but understand where you are coming from...

It is more like "I got the money > now gimme all of yours too, and give it up with a smile you moron" > no difference on either side of the political spectrum > that's why arguing about "ideology" is such a waste of time and energy...

There isn't any ideology beyond who controls the money and how they go about getting a bigger piece of the pie.

:faint:

ElKabong

06-25-2005, 02:53 PM

....Bush and his partners in the Rangers convinced Arlington officials to:

pass a half cent sales tax to pay for 70 percent of the stadium; use the government's powers of eminent domain to condemn land the Rangers couldn't or didn't want to buy on the open market;

little girl,

You and Sec have this little problem. You post half truths (on your best days). You never mentioned Arlington citizens VOTED for the new stadium. Citizens knew people's homes would be bought by the city to build the new stadium. Why don't you tell the truth about this for a change?

Personally I don't like the idea of people being bought out (most did get better than fair value price for their homes, btw), but the Arlington citizens voted for The Ballpark. Same for the Cowboys new stadium in Arlington, which will be a far sweeter deal in the end than what the Rangers have.

kenwoodallpromos

06-25-2005, 04:39 PM

The apopstles voluntarily gave up their wealth. It was not taken. Communists take it.
The Supreme court said theirm end goal was not to giove to private enterprise, but to raise government taxes by raising the property tax. More taxes is the "public use" they are talking about. Communism whether they technically own the land or just control it to raise more taxes gain power. If they decide who owns it they own it for practical purposes. No they can take over and sell the racetracks if other development brings in more taxes. That includes NY if NYRA owns the land!

hcap

06-25-2005, 04:44 PM

Kabong,

Yep the voters agreed. On Jan. 19, 1991, citizens of Arlington voted two-to-one to approve a sales-tax increase dedicated to building the new park.

But did they really know what they bargained for?

....As part of the deal, the city created a separate corporation, the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority, to manage construction. Using authority granted to it by the city, the ASFDA seized several tracts of land around the stadium site for parking and future development.

According to documents obtained by the Center for Public Integrity, the owners would identify the land they wanted to acquire. A Rangers owner, Mike Reilly, a Realtor, would then offer to buy the parcels for prices he set, which in several cases were well below what the owners believed their property was worth. If the landowners refused to sell to the Rangers at the offered price, the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority could take possession of their land and leave the price to be determined in court.

Several of the landowners took the authority to court over the seizures and won settlements totaling $11 million. In a final insult to taxpayers, the Rangers resisted paying the settlements, trying to pass off yet another cost to Arlington residents. (The Rangers, under new ownership, finally agreed to pay.)

When confronted with the seamy details of the land grab, Bush professed ignorance. But Schieffer, the team’s former president, has testified that he kept Bush aware of the land transfers. In October 1990, Bush also let this slip to a reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: “The idea of making a land play, absolutely, to plunk the field down in the middle of a big piece of land, that’s kind of always been the strategy.”

See
http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/bush-sec5.html

Also according to Eric Alterman ("The Scandal No One Cares About," MSNBC) several landowners -- mostly homeowners and farmers -- refused to sell for what the Authority was offering. "The Authority condemned their land and expropriated it by force of law," wrote Alterman. "It did this with 270 acres of land, even though only about 17 acres were needed for the ballpark. The rest was used for commercial development that made Bush and his friends rich."

So what the voters bought into turned out to include a shady land grab deal, with eminent domain as the supporting legal bullshit, as well as a new stadium. Problem is that bush publically declares support for property rights and pulls a fast one.
In light of the recent crappy supreme court decision it is ironic that the ownership of the Rangers brought bush into the public eye.

I think this episode of "local politics" is par for most political courses. Too bad bush didn't stay "local" .

hcap

06-25-2005, 05:10 PM

Kabong,

One from the times agreeing with you "Local voters overwhelmingly approved the deal. But read the rest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/16/opinion/16KRIS.html?ex=1119844800&en=6b73e2edab403b8b&ei=5070&oref=login

.. Local voters overwhelmingly approved the deal, so maybe we shouldn't get so exercised by star-struck local officials giving $200 million to rich baseball owners. But the most unseemly part of the deal was that Mr. Bush and the Rangers' owners conspired with city officials to seize private property that would be handed over to the Bush group.

"A group of wealthy and influential people threatened and traded their way into an unprecedented takeover of government power and private property in an awesome display of greed and avarice," charges a lawsuit by the landowners, in what strikes me as a fair recitation of events. Another suit charges that the deal "can only be described as astounding, unprecedented and blatantly illegal."

A copy of the secret agreement among Mr. Bush and the other Rangers owners shows that they intended to make money not just by running a baseball club but also by land speculation.

For example, one owner found a nice chunk of land and sent a memo suggesting that it "sounds like another condemnation candidate if you want to work the site into your master plan," according to the court documents. Another of the owners' internal memos casts a proprietary gaze on a property and declares: "We plan to condemn this land."

Democrats weren't clean either.

..Democratic Gov. Ann Richards signed into law an extraordinary measure setting up the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority (ASFDA), which had the power to seize privately owned land deemed necessary for stadium construction.

Suff

06-25-2005, 05:30 PM

The whole site is great.. But if your looking specifically for Voter turnout worldwide click here

http://www.idea.int/vt/survey/voter_turnout_pop2.cfm

Did any of you Visit this site? There's an e-mail address for further information. I sent this question, and if/when I get a reply I'll post it.

m.gratschew@idea.int
Regarding your list of World Wide election turnout.

Do you have a list that uses socioeconomic conditions such as what percentages of the citizenery are allowed to vote?

Further, do you have a wieghted list using externals that may include:

1. Legislative Power of the elected body

2. Poll factors, such as anonymous voting?

3. Length of voting window? One day like the USA National Holiday like Europe?

4. Length of ruling term. Eg..US congress two years.

I'm further curious if education and other social demographic data was used in forming a ranking

Tom

06-25-2005, 06:13 PM

Good point Ken....every racetrack in the country is now in jeopardy. They don't have to conside anyhting but the tax rate-if they can sell NYRA for a K Mart superstore, they can do it now. Great country we live in, eh?

ElKabong

06-25-2005, 11:03 PM

little girl,

Give me names of 10 of these so called unfortunate homeowners and I'll trek down to the courthouse in FW Monday and look up what they got for their houses vs the actual value. I guarantee you they got a much better deal than they w/h if they put it up for sale. I live in the area, I know most got great deals. Some that held back and wanted to try to milk the city might have gotten a lesser deal (like the group off of Greenville Ave and Forest in Dallas), but we don't know that as fact.

Again, I don't like the idea of running people outta their chosen neighborhoods, even at inflated sales prices. But the city did vote the passage. End of story.

Get a hard copy of Saturday's Dallas Morning News, look in the Metro section and see how property owners affected by the Cowboys stadium are having $$$ thrown at them to move NOW. If you are renting a home, you get a bonus of $5200 + for moving. If you own you'll get $25,000 on top of the "fair value" to move.....And the types of homes we're talking about (70-85k) are pretty cheap and in disrepair. Most homeowners that live in 80k houses in Arlington w/h to be braindead not to take that deal.

Oh btw, the biggest complainer of the city of Arlington and Cowboys deal for buying up properties is none other than a landlord who owns 10 properties. Get the picture here? The slob is trying to milk as much as he can out of the city before he takes his excessive payments on his properties.

So whenever I see people complain they're being "under paid" on these things you simply need to look deeper than just "they';re taking my home away". They're more than likely holding out for more cash.

Tom

06-26-2005, 12:27 AM

I think it just smells bad to take someone's home away for something as stupid and worthless as a baseball stadium. I defy anyone to explane to me how a ball park is in the public's interest.
It is just un-American, and while Bush acted legally, I still think it refelcts poorly on him as a man. Or a boy. Even then, he did not have the best interests of the average American on his list of to do things. Explains his current behavior, though.

ElKabong

06-26-2005, 01:08 AM

Tom,

Maybe I can help with your question(s).

Dallas pushed hard for the new Ballpark and approached the Ranger ownership, not the other way around. Business leaders here thot a ballpark in downtown Dallas would revitalize the downtown area as well as the new AAC (basketball/ hockey arena) and what they call "The Trinity Project".

Arlington doesn't have much to offer other than the Rangers. Their restaurant bizz is dependant on baseball and Six Flags, mostly the baseball crowd. The city depends on the sales taxes and purchases the games generate to the economy. In short, Arlington couldn't afford to lose the baseball team. The $$$ the team brings in is critical to them.

Think of it in serious terms.....The citizens voted for the new Ballpark in the early 90s, and they just recently got thru voting for the new football stadium. No one put a gun to Arlingtonians head, Tom. The people there will (apparently) accept a small sales tax increase to keep their property taxes down.....and there's more to it.

Personally, I'm with you and hcap and everyone else. I;d rather see owners of teams pay for ballparks w/ their own money, but that ain't happenin many places these days. In fact, Lone Star Park wouldn't have been built if it weren;t for major concessions not only by Grand Prairie, but the state had to ease the excessive % of take they were asking tracks to fork over.

But the whole thing comes down to this----Arlington voted for the stadiums. The citizens knew if they didn't pass it, they'd have to pay higher property taxes. That's what it all came down to. My burb has higher property taxes than Arlington, but I doubt our schools are any better. In fact I'd bet against it.

joeyspicks

06-26-2005, 07:39 AM

This kind of decision is scary indeed. It seems as anyone "connected" now has the right to seize YOUR property for the good of the people. Sound familier?

hcap

06-26-2005, 08:16 AM

Tom I think it just smells bad to take someone's home away for something as stupid and worthless as a baseball stadium. I defy anyone to explane to me how a ball park is in the public's interest.
It is just un-American, and while Bush acted legally, I still think it refelcts poorly on him as a man Legally is generally in the hands of the guys with the pull. Eminent domain as well as other legalities can be manipulated by money, political connections and clever media control. Continues now with new Supreme Court decision.

The little guy who fights in the courts, generally does not have the resources to go against the big guy. But not always. In the bush case, lawsuits were brought against the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority and won.

Elk, anecdotal evidence you claim may be accurate but I doubt the majority of lawsuits filed were by a "slob trying to milk as much as can out of the city". In fact there is much evidence to support the Rangers offering as little as 1/7 the the going rate.

Tom is right "It is just un-American, and while Bush acted legally, I still think it reflects poorly on him as a man."

Btw, Bucky Fanning's property was a thouroughbred training ranch.

...The Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority gave the Fanning family $1.09 million for their property in 1991. A real estate company had offered him $3.5 million three years earlier.

Fanning sued the stadium authority, claiming it had not given him a fair price for the ranch. The IRS, meanwhile slapped him with a $1 million tax bill in 1992, saying the land was more valuable than $1.09 million.

The two cases dragged on for years. The Arlington stadium authority agreed to pay Fanning an additional $4 million just before the case went to trial in 1998. Fanning settled with the IRS in 1999 for $1.2 million.

"If we could have kept our property, with a new ballpark there, we would have been sitting pretty," Fanning says. "Instead, Bush was the one to profit."

wonatthewire1

06-26-2005, 08:18 AM

It seems as anyone "connected" now has the right to seize YOUR property for the good of the people.

And...if you think about it...what's to stop an insidious increase in bribery and other forms of "influence peddling" to get that property?

:bang:

DJofSD

06-26-2005, 09:15 AM

Now I know how the people of Rock Ridge felt.

Who's our Cleavon Little?

DJofSD

Secretariat

06-26-2005, 10:09 AM

The liberal dream has been realized - ultimate big government.

And to think it took the Bush adminstration and a Republican majority congress to really bring it to fruition. What are those deficits now?

ElKabong

06-26-2005, 02:11 PM

Elk, anecdotal evidence you claim may be accurate but I doubt the majority of lawsuits filed were by a "slob trying to milk as much as can out of the city". In fact there is much evidence to support the Rangers offering as little as 1/7 the the going rate.

Btw, Bucky Fanning's property was a thouroughbred training ranch.

"[/B]

hcap,

You'll need to give me ten names to make my effort worthwhile, not one. And I'm not doing this to stick you in the eye, I'm curious myself and will have some free time Monday morning to see if these articles are more "GWB the boogeyman" or if they're true. Only way to find out is to make a run to the courthouse in FW. (after Monday, I won't be able to spend the time). I'm telling you though, the vast majority got a lot more than fair value & then some.

For all you or I know, Fanning c/h been a hardass all along, just as teh landlord currently is who somehow thinks his property is worth more than 25-50% over its fair value. He's a landlord. His job is to milk as much $$$ out of his houses, and that's simply what he is presently doing. If he gets shorted in the long run, who's going to feel sorry for him? He has a chance to clear nlt $250,000 if he sells out to the city on some ratty houses.

So, when this guy's name pops up in the paper, just realize no one is throwing him out of his home. He's living in much nicer diggs than that particular neighborhood. and is thumbing his nose at what is more than likely a $350-400k windfall.

46zilzal

06-26-2005, 06:28 PM

if you simply don't want to move, now PRIVATE enterprise greases the palms of officials and takes your land forcing to take what THEY and not the market gives you....it's b.s.

Tom

06-26-2005, 08:33 PM

The "Kangaroo Kourt" has got to be dismantled - lifetime appointments are plainly stupid. Out founding fathers must have already harvested thier mary jane when the wrote that part of the constitution.

5 unelected, unaccountable idiots have just opened the door for the uber ricvh to legally take anyting they want. What do you think you could buy a town supervisor's vote for in order to tear down a local grocery store and put in a P&C.

Or take a farmer's land, been in his family a hundred years, so Haliburton can put in a private air strip?

Lefty

06-27-2005, 01:10 PM

Suff

06-27-2005, 01:17 PM

It certainly needs to be reiterated that it was the CONSERVATIVES on the court that tried to protect the Private Property rights and the LIBERALS and so-called moderates that voted against private property rights. It's an urban myth that Liberals and Dems are for the little guy. The liberals and Dems are for more and more power to be exercised by the govt. ERGO, we need more conservatives on this court.

Executive Branch controlled 6 years

Legislative branch controlled 12 years

Supreme Court controlled by Republican Majority

All Decisions you disagree with, have majority opinion written by Republicans.

Only you. Can not see the truth.

46zilzal

06-27-2005, 01:24 PM

It certainly needs to be reiterated that it was the CONSERVATIVES on the court that tried to protect the Private Property rights and the LIBERALS and so-called moderates that voted against private property rights. .
amazing.....decision of the Republican backed majority on the court and YOU somehow see it as part of a Democratic problem...deal with the thing at hand: these folks voted against private property rights

JPinMaryland

06-27-2005, 01:53 PM

There is no doubt that the 5 that voted on the majority in this case are considered to be the court's liberal-moderate group.

The 4 who voted against (Scalia, Thomas, OCOnner Rehnquist) are the courts conservative group.

Does anyone disagree with that?

Suff

06-27-2005, 02:02 PM

There is no doubt that the 5 that voted on the majority in this case are considered to be the court's liberal-moderate group.

?

No I do not agree with that... It is not even remotely accurate.

My Question to you is why? Why is it that, the very first place people go when they disagree with a ruling is to resurrect the Liberal word? Why is that?

Why do you feel the need, or urge, or compulsion to seperate the dissenters into the Liberal catergory. None of these Judge's are Liberal. Especially the registered republicans, who were appointed by republican presidents.

Where and why are you using the Liberal word? Liberals, and more specifically "liberalism" has nothing to do with the decision. (s).

Please define liberalism and how you think the decision was a component of it?

lsbets

06-27-2005, 02:53 PM

Suff, you seem to think that all Republicans are conservative. That would be as incorrect a statement as saying all Democrats are liberals. The Republican appointed justices who voted in the majority in this case are in no way conservative. As JP said, their body of work on the court places them squarely in the liberal-moderate wing of politics. No one is resurrecting the "L" word, people have pointed out - accurately - that the four dissenters were the conservative justices, and the 5 in the majority were in the liberal-moderate wing. You seem to have a real problem with that because three of those justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. So what? There are liberal Republicans, moderate Republicans, and conservative Republicans. Just as there are all three of the same with Democrats. I am really surprised that you don't realize that.

And the better way of describing this case and the medical pot case is one of federalism vs. statism. Clearly Renquist, Thomas, and O'Connor are the three main federalists on the court, and Scalia generally falls in that category except for when he allows his personal political views to get involved in a case, as he did with the medical pot case. I highly doubt that any of the three dissenters there would have voted to allow medical pot in a legislative session, but the three of them clearly felt that was where it should be dealt with.

Suff

06-27-2005, 03:03 PM

Lefty

06-27-2005, 03:23 PM

Suff, the decision was NOT made by conservatives. Tell me what conservatives voted for this decision? like it or not, protest all ya want, libs and mods formed the maj onthis one.
How does it fit in with liberalism? Libs like things to be govt controlled. Libs like getting their greedy power hungry mitts on our tax money. Now they have the power to take private propery from one owner and give it to another owner who is paying more taxes.
Conservatives believe strongly in private property rights and libs do not. Now i'm not talking about the rank and file libs like you suff but the guys you vote for and groups like the Sierra club and their ilk.

Suff

06-27-2005, 03:33 PM

logic defys reality with you guys

A decade with the congress, 6 years with executive branch, and a CONSERVATIVE majority on the bench.......and you still cry foul.

Lefty...

In the last 6 years has Govt gotten bigger or smaller?

In the last 12 years has our Criminal code expanded or retracted?

In the last 5 years have Govt. Expanded thier ability to spy on its citizens?

In the last 5 years have our civil rights been restricted?

In the last 5 years has the Govt lowered the bar for required evidence, to seek warrants?

In the last 5 years has Govt paid its bills?

So your description more accurately describes your party affiliation....

No one can define Liberalism and make it work into the decision.

And the "moderate" republicans you speak of, have gotten that misnomer on SOCIAL ISSUES..... They are constructionist's just like Scalia and Thomas on every other issue.

lsbets

06-27-2005, 03:36 PM

So is it your contention Suff that Ginsberg and Breyer are not liberals? Just for fun I will concede on Stevens, Kennedy, and Souter and place them as moderate (in my honest opinion, I would place Stevens as liberal and the other two as liberal leaning moderates). That still leaves us with 4 conservative - Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas, and O'Connor, and two liberals - Breyer and Ginsberg. Who voted where on this case? Conservatives 4 against. Liberals 2 in favor. Moderates 3 in favor.

I understand, this is hard for you. You don't want to admit it. You believe in the ideals of Kennedy liberalism, but as a political movement, Kennedy liberalism is dead and has been for quite some time (I'm talking about John and Robert, not Ted).

Lefty

06-27-2005, 03:47 PM

suff, we're talking about this decision. Now you want to change spin and obfuscate. But the hard truth you can't escape is that the conservatives sided with private property rights and the libs and mods showed their true colors. You wanna talk about that other stuff, start some new threads.

JPinMaryland

06-27-2005, 03:49 PM

There are no serious commentators of the Supreme Court who would argue that the 5 who voted for are on the courts moderate liberal wing. And the 4 that voted against are on the most conservative wing. No one who is anybody would dispute that.

Suff

06-27-2005, 04:00 PM

I understand, this is hard for you. You don't want to admit it. You believe in the ideals of Kennedy liberalism, but as a political movement, Kennedy liberalism is dead and has been for quite some time (I'm talking about John and Robert, not Ted).

Whats hard is that your crew has the had the wheel for a decade and has driven us into a ditch. As that ditch keeps getting deeper and deeper all you can do is keep crying Liberal...Liberal... Liberal...

None... None...not any of the Justice's are Liberal. None of them are. Not even the democrats. This has nothing to do with Liberalism.

Defined as.. (dictionary.com)

A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

lsbets

06-27-2005, 04:20 PM

Suff, I don't have a crew, sorry. I am not a Republiucan (how many times do you have to hear the same thing before it sinks in). And I am sorry that this is so hard for you to deal with. I didn't cry liberal - you tried to say this was a result of conservatism, so I pointed out where the liberals and conservatives voted on this case. You don't like it - good, you shouldn't. Take your party back. Take it back from the extreme that has hijacked it. Kick Mov On to the curb where they belong and bring the party and movement back to where people will once again believe they can do great things for America. I've said time and again - what has happenned to modern American liberalism and to the Democratic party is really and truly a shame. They have both lost touch with the ideals that once made them a great movement and a great party respectivly and have moved so far out of the mainstream that most voters no longer view either one as a viable option. It is sad.

46zilzal

06-27-2005, 05:18 PM

I've said time and again - what has happenned to modern American liberalism and to the Democratic party is really and truly a shame. They have both lost touch with the ideals that once made them a great movement and a great party respectivly and have moved so far out of the mainstream that most voters no longer view either one as a viable option. It is sad.
and the option is continual war?? huge budgets losses, more jobs lost by giving he FAT CATS more tax exemptions to send jobs elsewhere?

PaceAdvantage

06-27-2005, 05:46 PM

and the option is continual war?? huge budgets losses, more jobs lost by giving he FAT CATS more tax exemptions to send jobs elsewhere?

And isn't it sad? Isn't it sad that the Democratic Party, with all this going against the Republican Party, STILL COULDN'T FIND ITSELF ACCEPTABLE TO A MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE a scant 6 months ago.

Let this be a wakeup call to you....read Lsbets' post immediately above yours again and again until it sinks in....there's a lot of truth in his post.

lsbets

06-27-2005, 05:48 PM

Hey, I just realized I hit 1,000 posts. It ain't quite Tom, but damn, I need to get a life. :D

Suff

06-27-2005, 05:59 PM

And isn't it sad? Isn't it sad that the Democratic Party, with all this going against the Republican Party, STILL COULDN'T FIND ITSELF ACCEPTABLE TO A MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE a scant 6 months ago.

Let this be a wakeup call to you....read Lsbets' post immediately above yours again and again until it sinks in....there's a lot of truth in his post.

believe me... u wouldnt want an election done today. You seen the numbers?

btw.. I have absolutley no major beef with Moveon.org

Can anyone here tell me 1 or even 2 specific incidents that Moveon.org has negatively affected your American Experience?
http://www.moveon.org/front/

Lefty

06-27-2005, 06:12 PM

Lefty

06-27-2005, 06:18 PM

Suff

06-27-2005, 06:27 PM

suff, it wasn't for lack of trying. You keep pointing out the founder of Fox News is not american yet the major contributor to moveon is Geo Soros a foreigner who WOULD like to affect our elections and way of life. Tch tch...
And moveon have said they WERE the Dem party. Scary!

So you have no negatve experiences with respect to Moveon.org.

Bill Orielly told you they suck and thats good enough for you.

Thats what I thought.

Suff

06-27-2005, 06:39 PM

46. even though you libs want to keep drifting away from the core subject of this thread i will address the jobs moving away. Been going that way a long time, long before Bush. AND, how come i never hear about the 5 million or so jobs that have come our way from foreign lands, insourcing if you will, hmmmmm?

I could care less what the CORE subject of the thread has become..

I know this... Nothing in the New London decision had anything to do with Liberalism. And I defy you to show me where it does.

Further, The decision was done by REPUBLICANS.... Calling them moderates does'nt change that... Nor is it relevant. I heard all 5 drink Pepsi too? So they share that in Common, perhaps that had something to do with it.

Lefty

Republicans wrote a decisin you disgaree with. Liberals have nothing to do with that. The question for you is what are you going to do about it? Liberal Bash? I find it comical that ISBETS and you and others, want to take a REPUBLICAN DECISION, that benefits REPUBLICANS and attempt to "Liberalize" it

To what JPmaryland said.. No serious commentators of the Supreme Court would disect the decision by calling the Republican Majority, the "liberals" ..

Do you have a Position on the Majority decison that was wriiten by the REPUBLICANS>? That would be a COMMENT on the supreme court.
You called a REGISTERED REPUBLICAN, who was appointed by A REPUBLICAN President, who sided with a REPUBLICAN Law firm, in a decision that benefitted REPUBLICANS, A liberal. And you find no insanity in that?

Or do you want to find solice in calling these Republicans.. Moderates? And since you are headed that way lets call them "Liberal Republicans"

Not because they are... "Liberal Republicans" But because you need a Home for Blame... a Home for that hate.... a Home for the confusion, a home for your lack of faith in this adminstration. a home for your self-doubt.

Liberal is not a Party...it is not a GROUP>.. it is an ideology...and none of these Justices... not the Republicans, nor the Democrats....are Liberals.

So go somewhere else with the silly nonsense.

JustRalph

06-27-2005, 06:40 PM

Suff

06-27-2005, 06:50 PM

in the ditch..............? Yeah,.......I know, you guys will scream the jobs suck etc. yeah...whatever

"The economy added 78,000 payroll jobs in the month of May... while this might be lower than expected, the unemployment rate fell to 5.1%, which is remarkably low. A year ago, the unemployment rate was 5.6%. This also follows a payroll gain of 274,000 in April. The unemployment rate also remains below the averages of each of the past 3 decades. This also marks the 24th consecutive month of job growth during which the economy has added over 3.5 million jobs..."

More at this link........although I doubt anybody cares
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092602/posts

The country needs a 170,000 jobs a month to stay even... there are no 'net-net" job gains till we hit 170.

The Data used to compile Unemployment rates is skewered. For example... If I have 7 weeks of unemployment benefits, and I do not find a Job in 7 weeks, then I am taken from the Unemployed rolls, wether I am working or not...

But I say the facst be damned... I'll let the people speak...and the Numbers...across the board are bad. People are working less, People are working harder for less.

I know one thing.... They're about to sell Unocal to the Communist China's #3 Oil firm. Commies buying American! lol. And oil no less.. The very thing the boys are dieing of...and for.. BUsh is selling to china. not just the OIL... the whole COMPANY!!

CNOOC: Unocal Bid Not About Politics
06.27.2005, 05:59 PM

Chinese state-controlled oil and gas company CNOOC Ltd. is waging a high-stakes public relations campaign to focus its bid for U.S. energy producer Unocal Corp. on shareholder value, and away from politics.

The company has hired high-powered public relations and lobbying teams to steer Unocal shareholders, regulatory bodies, legislators and the media away from the notion that the proposed deal is an attempt by the Chinese government to deprive the U.S. of vital energy resources.

CNOOC's CEO Fu Chengyu wrote in a letter to Congress Monday that the company is eager to have the U.S. government scrutinize the national security implications of the deal - seeking to address concerns already circulating among lawmakers.

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2005/06/27/ap2113111.html

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Really... How stupid can one country be?

Lefty

06-27-2005, 07:08 PM

Suff, that's the prob with libs, when the core becomes too hot you moveon.
I'm ma conservative, sio i'm not in step with moderates and libs of any party and conservatives have defended private property rights.

Why do you think Bill O'Reilly has any influence over me? I'm a conservative Repub and he's independent.
I know moveon sucks cause i've been there. I know Fox is fair and bal cause I watch.
I know lib dems suck cause i've paid exorbitant taxes demanded by them for yrs. I'm 68 my man and i've had my political views since i've been able to vote. Long befotre Rush, Hannity or O'reilly, so please refrain from playing that little game.

46zilzal

06-27-2005, 07:21 PM

. I know Fox is fair and bal cause I watch.

hardly a good reason to plug them...do yourself a favor and watch "Outfoxed" to see how OUT OF BALANCE all that crap is they spew.

wonatthewire1

06-27-2005, 07:38 PM

But it is also a mitigated fact that the largest deficits in US history were under Reagan and Bush II > not that you or I will have to pay it > but the next generation most certainly will...

And Clinton, though "balancing" the budget, failed to correct the issues that face programs like Medicare and illegal immigration > both huge drains on the budget as they grow exponentially rather than contracting.

Taxes are the bain of every citizen in the country > yet do you make more than $300,000 per year to benefit from the most recent tax cuts?

And if you did happen to get a tax break, how much of that went to the oil companies? Most Americans are net-net losers in that respect...we may call one thing "taxes" and another "a purchase" yet they both cost money...

There are a multitude of problems that the US Government has yet to make much progress upon beyond being able to create weapons of mass destruction. Health care will be a big one. The looming pension crisis will make the bail-out of the big boys in the savings and loan debacle (again on your back) seem like pocket change. We don't make much in this country anymore and the Chinese are about ready to begin their dominance of trade even more of an issue. Yet our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, make little headway toward any real solutions. Suff's posting on the Unocal situation is a wake up call to the fact that we are fast becoming also rans with huge personal and governmental debts and nothing to pay them with...and the Chinese are going to be able to defeat us economically without even having to fire a shot...they are getting closer every day.

Certainly feel free to watch O'Reilly and/or listen to Air America > but be cognizant of the fact that neither has ever offered any solutions to the true crisises that face a country that doesn't want to face them. But events, like the Great Depression or 9/11 don't care what we think nor could those things care if we don't want them to happen > they do and they will...

A couple of points on the government figures that come out: the unemployment rate only factors those who are collecting benefits; it wouldn't count those just graduating from college trying to get a job. The 170,000 net new jobs needed to be created each month just to keep even is an average > it depends on seasonality but 170,000 is the average. Remember, Greenspan just last year changed the method in which manufacturing jobs were "counted" thus bringing many more into the fold and having the numbers look better. The other very "fake" figure that is released is the productivity numbers as people who work overtime do not have those hours counted but the output is counted...

:rolleyes:

Lefty

06-27-2005, 08:00 PM

won, why do you guys drift so far from the thread at hand? Start a new one and let's have at it.

Suff

06-27-2005, 08:01 PM

Suff's posting on the Unocal situation is a wake up call to the fact that we are fast becoming also rans with huge personal and governmental debts and nothing to pay them with...and the Chinese are going to be able to defeat us economically without even having to fire a shot...they are getting closer every day.

:rolleyes:

And do you know exactly "who" is leading the charge of selling our Oil Companys to China? The Liberals thats who!. One c'sucker named Mark Mckinnon! Sure he's a registered republican, and sure he worked for George Bush... But godamn it, he's Liberal now, or at least a Moderate... because theres a chance that in the past he's agreed with a Democrat... Thats how a Supreme Court Justice is defined now. Your not a Conservative if you agree with a Democrat. The new definition of a Liberal is defined as a Conservative who has agreed in the past with Democrats! :D

But back to the UNOCAL DEAL.... It's straight up George Bush pulling the strings here so there is no way they can blame the Liberals for this!

"This is a commercial deal, a commercial bid from one New York Stock Exchange listed company to another New York Stock Exchange listed company designed to improve shareholder value for both," said Mark Palmer, a managing director at Public Strategies Inc. of Austin, Texas, one of two public relations firms hired by CNOOC.

Public Strategies has close ties to President Bush. One of its top executives, Mark McKinnon, served as a media adviser to the Bush-Cheney campaign.
Editors note: Lie to yourself and say "George Bush was'nt briefed on this prior to China making the move"

McKinnon is not working on the CNOOC account, and Bush spokesman Scott McClellan sidestepped a question about the firm's close administration ties at a press briefing Monday

Lefty

06-27-2005, 08:04 PM

46, i watched cbs, nbc and abc for years and watched and listened as they blathered the liberal msg at me. Finally FOX! I know they are fair and balanced cause I watch. They prob even have more libs on board than conservatives, but they strive to be fair and balanced. How refreshing. Of course I know you libs detest fair and balanced and only want to listen to other libs!

lsbets

06-27-2005, 08:13 PM

Suff - you hate to admit to this simple fact:

All of the conservatives on the court voted against the decision.

All of the liberals voted for it.

You can try to hide from it all you want because you are ashamed of them, but the liberals voted for it.

I'll keep saying that as often as you need to hear it.

The liberals voted for it. Modern American liberalism does not believe in individual property rights. I'll refer you back to KOS - you know, Dean's main guy. They loved this decision. It slapped "right wing property right extremists." I'm not making it up - straight from the heart of modern liberalism. The liberals voted for it, they loved it. Community over the individual. Group rights ahed of individual rights. That's the left in America.

Suff

06-27-2005, 08:25 PM

All of the liberals voted for it.

I find that hilarious. Honestly, not in a cynical way, but in a genuine funny way. Thanks

wonatthewire1

06-27-2005, 08:33 PM

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

Boy, that's really important!

Suff

06-27-2005, 08:37 PM

Community over the individual. Group rights ahed of individual rights. That's the left in America.

This benefits a handfull of people. Not the community? Who told you that? That this was done to benefit the Community?

The Land developers? The Politicians? Please... think about what your saying... Your telling me that Liberals honestly made a deal where a handfull of wealthy republicans will get rich, and they will cut the Politicians in for a piece through tax's.... and those Tax's will eventually make thier way into the community? How? Do you know? Do you unequically know that LIBERALS..... Did a deal like that?

A Group similiar to the ACLU, (even more liberal) was the Plaintiffs (homeowners) attorney.

Thats like GreenPeace losing! Yet you wrap it in Liberalism.

Your excluding the CASE itself...and who benefits.. I can tell you because we have leveled entire nieghborhoods here... available land being what it is here....emminent domain is quite common. By that I mean Multiple times a year....The city takes Property for the Public Good. But the city holds the property as an operating asset, or auctions it , with 100% of net profits going to the City Coffers....

This isn't remotely close to that.

lsbets

06-27-2005, 08:37 PM

I find that hilarious. Honestly, not in a cynical way, but in a genuine funny way. Thanks

The truth can be funny at times.

lsbets

06-27-2005, 08:40 PM

Suff, go back and read what I linked to at Howard Dean's blog/board, I'm sorry, Daily KOS, the unofficial blog/board.

wonatthewire1

06-27-2005, 08:54 PM

That neither the Democratic party nor the Republican party gives even a passing glance at what the people want...the rhetoric only comes out in an election cycle...

The terminology of "liberal" & "conservative" keep the populace very busy arguing amongst themselves > while the extremely rich keep pulling all the chips their way > and politicans like keeping it that way as they themselves become enriched with both money and power...

There was a time when I was very liberal and a time when I was very conservative in my political thinking. I think that really changed with the Clinton adminitration's battles with Gingrich's Congress > there really wasn't any difference only continuation of open issues to "charge up that voting base".

A few weeks ago, a very liberal co-worker was getting all worked up over what someone on Fox was saying the night before about the war in Iraq. So I asked him if his action item was to converse with our representative in the House about not voting for continued appropriations for the war effort > you know, taking action instead of getting higher blood pressure over someone else's "opinion". Nope, never thought about it, just continued to wallow in hate. Ever thought about getting involved in causes that he was passionate about > nope, nothing there either. So he becomes exactly what a politican wants > a frustrated non-actor...perfect.

And there is nothing to "have out about it" > I can bury both sides of the political spectrum with aplomb

:jump:

Suff

06-27-2005, 09:01 PM

Suff, go back and read what I linked to at Howard Dean's blog/board, I'm sorry, Daily KOS, the unofficial blog/board.

First of all... There's a two page maximum on the "refer to my" requests. That link was 7 pages back. I had to send a search party to find it.

That's your example or evidence that This court ruling is Liberal Ideology?

How tainted are you?

disaster for local governments to build for the community (including when the purpose is to help the environment, build affordable housing, create jobs, etc.). It would have sacrificed needed community power at the hands.

This an opinion that culls potential negative effects if Emmient Domain had its Constitutional Authority Restricted by the ruling going the other way. It by no means supports this decision. Nowhere? It speaks to the point of the authority of a Representative Govt.

Citizens that want a TOXIC WASTE dump removed because high rates of cancer among children within 10 miles of it. Situations like that. The writer makes no endorsement of the Decision? Can you highlight where he does?

Also he further states
As first glace, you may think that giving private homeowner property to a private corporations is a bad thing. And it very well might be in many cases

That is the Liberal Hook your hanging this jacket on? Motion Denied. Next Case.

DJofSD

06-27-2005, 09:05 PM

I can't believe you guys. You're bickering about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Liberal. Republican. Conservative. Democrat. Who's got what stripes that wrote this part of the opinion. Who's more responsible for this problem, etc., etc.

You're forgetting the whole project was to drain the swamp. Now all you can see are the alligators.

Your freedoms are under assualt. And you're more worried about your egos -- who's right, who's wrong.

Wake up! This court has just ruled that public good is what ever they say it is.

They've taken what is clearly a limiting clause in the Constitution and have turned it on it's head. Shades of Lewis Carroll.

As long as you debate the idealogical gulf that exists between the various groups, you've lost. And you'll continue to lose. And pretty soon, as this right and the other right that we've all taken for granted and assumed will always be there are modified, limited, morphed and then eliminated, you will wonder, gee wiz, what happened?

DJofSD

P.S. God bless Paul Winchell.

Lefty

06-27-2005, 09:44 PM

ya know, when they hauled out the newest copout, i.e. adult ADD I didn't blve in it but yuh know, I better give it some thghts after you guys having so much probs staying on thread.

Tom

06-27-2005, 09:53 PM

Are you guys talking about the SC descision to take awy our right to own property?

Wow, what a shame - those damn libs on the court are ruining this country!:bang:

Suff

06-27-2005, 09:57 PM

ya know, when they hauled out the newest copout, i.e. adult ADD I didn't blve in it but yuh know, I better give it some thghts after you guys having so much probs staying on thread.

Your buddy Clinton was in town this weekend. He went up to Maine this morning and went Fishing with your other buddy. It's easy to focus when your fishing.

Clinton comes to Maine to sign books, visit Walker's Pointwww.boston.com

Lefty

06-27-2005, 10:22 PM

suff, yeah, Bush Sr. either is one of those forgiving Christians i heard so much about or Bush feels that when Clinton's with him, the women are safe. LOL

JustRalph

06-27-2005, 10:54 PM

DJofSD

P.S. God bless Paul Winchell.

A unique individual to be sure. What a talented guy...!!!

If there is a God, those two are having a hell of a conversation tonight..........

http://www.paulwinchell.com/

Tom

06-27-2005, 11:22 PM

A unique individual to be sure. What a talented guy...!!!

If there is a God, those two are having a hell of a conversation tonight..........

http://www.paulwinchell.com/

What about Charlie McCarthy?

"You're the dummy."
"No, YOU'RE the dummy."
"No, YOU'RE the dummy."
"No, YOU'RE the dummy."

PaceAdvantage

06-28-2005, 01:15 AM

believe me... u wouldnt want an election done today. You seen the numbers?

HAH! They were saying the same thing on November 1, 2004....LOL

Hell, they were saying it even louder around 6pm ET on November 2, 2004!!!

PaceAdvantage

06-28-2005, 01:17 AM

Bobby

06-28-2005, 10:26 AM

SO like when is Rehnquist gonna retire?

He's looks absolutely terrible and I'd hate to know that someone deciding such big cases has got cancer, a trachetomy, and walks with a cane.

Retire dude.

Dave Schwartz

06-28-2005, 03:54 PM

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

OTM Al

06-28-2005, 04:18 PM

A total stunt that I'm sure will never fly, but hey, all the points in the world for trying. Hope this gets picked up and spread nationally

Lefty

06-28-2005, 04:44 PM

Rush talked about this today. I hope it flies. I want to hear the pigs squeal when they get stuck.

Tom

06-28-2005, 05:59 PM

The Kourt is now in recess for three months.

With the grace of God, maybe none of them will be able to return.
:kiss: MA, you slimeballs.

hcap

07-07-2005, 06:04 AM

http://csmonitor.com/2005/0706/p01s03-uspo.html

Maybe trailer park residents don't count?
This eminent domain issue is simply another area where corruption has become legal. Goes across party lines. The supremes blew it big time

Hosshead

07-07-2005, 07:41 AM

Thanks for the link. A ray of hope.
Did you see The Late Show with Craig Ferguson the other night?
He really blasted the decision. He will become a U.S. citizen, and talked about how this decision goes against being an American.

boxcar

07-07-2005, 11:47 AM

Suff wrote:

Thats how I come up with it. How do you come up with it? That Members of the Republican party, who were appointed by Republican Presidents, and who heard the case from a Republican lawyer, and ruled in favor of Big Business Republicans....are now Liberals

Oh...how the simple-minded love over-simplified explanations of things that can be complicated. Just because someone wears the label "Rebpublican" doesn't necessarily mean that such subscribes to conservative ideology. History has shown that there are more than few "Republicans" who have strayed off the reservation -- in fact far more than there are Dems who have strayed off their's (which goes to show which party really marches in lockstep!).

Your list also demonstrates just how diffioult it can be for a President get a good bead on court nominees. Eisenhower essentially stated that his two worst mistakes when in office were his two "conservative" SC nominees!

The indisuputable fact remains that it was the LIBERAL sector of the high court who rendered the majority decision. This goes to demonstrate once again (as in the case of the Social Security Reform debates) how LIBERALS will pay lip service for being the champions of the "little guy", but then contradict their rhetoric with their actions.

Boxcar

Kreed

07-07-2005, 12:14 PM

I'm was glad that O'Connor voted NO to that Eminent Domain issue. Of course,
its simple brained to think all Republicans are This or That just as simple with
the LIBS vs CONS vs NEOcons --- yet, the highest category of humanity is the
LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, happily that's me. re: the Eminent Domain issue, I hope some developer bulldozes Souter's house while he's sitting on the front porch
with his mother & pet cat. lol, i hope some cam captures that.

boxcar

07-08-2005, 12:40 PM

Essentially, the limiting clause in the 5th Amendment relative to the eminent domain issue was the very first thing that crossed my mind when I initially heard about this outrageous decision. I thought to myself: Here again is a handful of unelected, unaccountable, untouchable and unapproachable pinhead lawyers abusing their power by perverting the clear intent of the Constitution. The amendment never intended for the federal government to approve, condone, encourage or in any way, shape or form support the transfer of private property from one individual owner to another, i.e. from a homeowner to a developer, for example.

Nor was it the intent of the amendment to exceedingly broaden the "for public use" clause to now mean for "any [perceived] public benefit", e.g. to realize higher tax revenues for some municipality.

Private ownership/control over one's property (personal and real) is the very cornerstone to a free society. But when Congress amended the Constitution to allow for an income tax, this bad law badly eroded an individual's control over the former, while this recent SC decision will sorely diminish (mark my words carefully) the control of the latter by individuals. Anyone who knows anything at all about Communism or Marxism knows that the cornerstone to these systems is government control of [all] property.

With this SC decision we have witnessed creeping, crawling, relentless Incrementalism -- first with the approval of the Income Tax nearly a hundred years ago that gives goverment great control over our private property and now with this horrendous decision that will give control to goverment(s) over our real property.

And, folks, look how easy it was to make this recent decision the "law of the land". With a few strokes of the pen, five (5) left-leaning pinheads decided to sorely diminsh an individual's control of his real property. All this law will do is encourage and foster more unholy marriages at a faster rate between corrupt politicians and greedy developers, as just one example.

Some months ago before I took my little sabbatical from this forum, I declared that the real power in this country resides with the SC -- that the nine justices are the most powerful men in the world -- simply because they are justices in the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world. And if anyone doesn't believe this, just go back and read what a big liberal rag (like the NYT, for example) had to say right after the decision -- and how the Times characterized Congress (you know...our "LAWMAKERS") as essentially being hijackers for wanting to pass laws that would essentially reverse the SC decision. The Times, to it's perverted way of thinking, evidently believes the highest court in the land should have the last say in all legal and public policy matters. With this kind of thinking, why, oh why do we even need a Congress!?

Boxcar

JustRalph

07-08-2005, 01:03 PM

That just as simple with the LIBS vs CONS vs NEOcons --- yet, the highest category of humanity is the LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, happily that's me.

:lol: :lol: Now come on!!!!! You should be doing comedy somewhere

Lefty

07-08-2005, 01:14 PM

JR, if he really believes it he should be undergoing examination somewhere.
Libs blve in high taxes, teachers unions and pissing money down the "war on poverty" rathole that has cost us over 6 trillion dollars and they want more!
They are responsible for the teachers unions that have resulted in kids graduating fom highschool without any reading or math skills.
They are responsible for gutting the military. And now, during one of the most important hours of mankind, they compare our govt to the nazis and russian gulags.
And now that we've had a horrific terror attack in London the lib Dems are crowding the microphones, not to condemn the terrorists but to roundly criticise G.W.
Yeah, they're great alright.

hcap

08-19-2005, 05:46 AM

http://fairfieldweekly.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:119000

It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation.

... In June 2004, NLDC sent the seven affected residents a letter indicating that after the completion of the case, the city would expect to receive retroactive "use and occupancy" payments (also known as "rent") from the residents.

JustRalph

08-19-2005, 08:29 AM

just another logical extension of an unfair ideology.........

JustRalph

04-21-2014, 12:53 AM

http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/18/kelo-decision-rousing-success/

Calling back a long way on this one.......check out the outcome of the case that caused the ruling

"The Kelo ruling was controversial and precedent-setting because, under eminent domain, the government may seize the property of a private citizen when it’s deemed necessary for public use — the construction of an airport, freeway, or post office — and they usually do so politely, giving notice and paying out the appraised value, for example, but in this case the private property was being seized not for necessary public use but for commercial development by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.

“Pfizer wants a nice place to operate,” a supercilious executive reportedly said in 2001. “We don’t want to be surrounded by tenements.”

But after prompting city officials to pave the way for its new research facility with the promise of tax revenue and new jobs for the city, Pfizer pulled out of New London in 2009, leaving the land undeveloped, the homeowners dispossessed, their homes demolished, the land bulldozed into a vacant lot that still sits empty. After being elected in 2011, New London’s mayor called it “black stain” on the town’s reputation in an apology to the homeowners."

More at the link

Robert Goren

04-21-2014, 10:08 AM

TJDave

04-21-2014, 11:16 AM

After looking through this old thread, it is amazing how many posters have changed their views on this subject. How they were so upset by Supreme Court decision back then, but now support the use of Eminent Domain for Keystone XL pipeline.

Or:

That Isbets didn't have a crystal ball to predict the Citizens United or McCutcheon cases.

HUSKER55

04-21-2014, 12:54 PM

unless things have changed a hell of a lot, those pipelines run along the section lines so individual counties will mow the weeds, spray for insects and etc.

At least that is what happened when the gas lines ran thru our county when I was a kid and that was the reasoning back then.

The only time I recall when farmers got really screwed was when the interstate went thru. not exactly the same thing.

JustRalph

04-21-2014, 02:22 PM

After looking through this old thread, it is amazing how many posters have changed their views on this subject. How they were so upset by Supreme Court decision back then, but now support the use of Eminent Domain for Keystone XL pipeline.

Almost an Apples and Oranges comparison really. Pfizer was a private company who convinced the government for vanity reasons to seize the property.

Keystone impacts much much more. Including some arguments for national security. There is a difference between taking a home and enforcing what will amount to an easement in some places.