PDA

View Full Version : Land of the free...


Aqua
06-23-2005, 11:45 AM
to take your house away to build an office complex or shopping center. :rolleyes2

STORY (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property_10;_ylt=AvD8rl_r_U_PBU5hmWQoiV1uCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

No sir, I don't like it.

Lilith
06-23-2005, 11:48 AM
I'm speechless.

Lilith
06-23-2005, 11:49 AM
Be grateful. :D

Aqua
06-23-2005, 11:54 AM
TY Lil... I needed that. :x:

Lilith
06-23-2005, 11:58 AM
I'd burn my bra in protest but it has a flag on it :(

dicksbro
06-23-2005, 11:58 AM
I don't like it, either. Again, it's one thing when a broad public interest can be demonstrated, but so that some corporation can build what it wants ... speechless is the right word, Lil! Obviously the individual is no longer important in the eyes of the courts. :(

I've heard rumors that Sandra Day O'Connor may leave the Supreme Court ... I sure hope not. Sounds like she was the voice of reason.

wyndhy
06-23-2005, 12:01 PM
wow.

...and the people will rise up...

sodaklostsoul
06-23-2005, 12:11 PM
That's just wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are 2 hospitals where I just moved from, and they are always expanding, but they buy out and they move the houses out not destroy them.

cherrypie7788
06-23-2005, 12:18 PM
It's total BS :mad:

jseal
06-23-2005, 01:54 PM
Aqua,

It seems that the conservatives lost a close one. :(

dicksbro
06-23-2005, 02:45 PM
Jseal, that's the interesting part. Conservatives were in the opposition to government taking land for commercial development. Hmmmmmmm. I thought they were the business lovers? :dizzy:

Is government weird or what? :confused:

Aqua
06-23-2005, 02:49 PM
Yeah, that confuzzled me pretty good too db. WTF? :confused:

jseal
06-23-2005, 02:52 PM
dicksbro,

I guess it depends on which values are being conserved.

Lilith
06-23-2005, 02:55 PM
I don't believe the terms conservatives and liberals mean the same politically as they do in the court system. If I ruled based on what I believed to be the strictest interpretation of the original document I would be conservative. Not sure if that is accurate but is what I have always believed. I thinkliberals see the document as one that was written with the ability to evolve. Like I said, I have no legal knowledge but I think this is how it works.

Aqua
06-23-2005, 03:04 PM
You know Lilith, I'm sure if you asked Donald Rumsfeld he would be able to explain it very clearly...
























































ROFLMAO
:spin: :rofl: :dizzy: :grin:

wyndhy
06-23-2005, 03:12 PM
it also used to be that what distinquished liberal from conservative was that conservatives were in favor of less government control/interference. i don't see that so much anymore

Mercury_Maniac
06-23-2005, 03:26 PM
Well it would be nice to own a bulldozer right now......cause I think i would bulldoze a few courthouses and put up some strip clubs that i always wanted.

Aqua
06-23-2005, 03:37 PM
it also used to be that what distinquished liberal from conservative was that conservatives were in favor of less government control/interference. i don't see that so much anymore
The Schiavo ordeal pretty much did away with that philosophy. :rolleyes2

wyndhy
06-23-2005, 03:41 PM
The Schiavo ordeal pretty much did away with that philosophy. :rolleyes2
that is one of the major ones i was thinking of as i wrote that

jseal
06-23-2005, 04:33 PM
I confess that I would have preferred that the more progressive members of the Supreme Court not have seen the Constitution evolving in quite this way. I suspect that if the power of the State had been pruned back here, Justice O'Connor would not need to have written "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Still, perhaps that is what people mean when they refer to the Constitution as “a living, breathing document”.

Lilith
06-23-2005, 05:00 PM
The Schiavo ordeal pretty much did away with that philosophy. :rolleyes2
Hush..../me staples her mouth shut and tapes all her fingers together

Aqua
06-23-2005, 05:07 PM
Hush..../me staples her mouth shut and tapes all her fingers together
Never mind the staples and tape... I have things to keep your mouth and hands busy... ;)

Lilith
06-23-2005, 05:08 PM
you don't say;) I believe that is illegal too in many states

Aqua
06-23-2005, 05:15 PM
Aye, but not in mine! ;)

Lilith
06-23-2005, 05:16 PM
Your place it is!

dicksbro
06-23-2005, 05:16 PM
You know, any more ... I don't think much of any of the politicians ... the parties ... or the courts. I've got the horrible feeling they could all care less about us and are primarily concerned with themselves. :rolleyes2.

Boo Hiss!!!

Steph
06-23-2005, 06:08 PM
I love the word "confuzzled" because that's how I feel. Land of the free, indeed.

PantyFanatic
06-23-2005, 07:31 PM
<-------- *will respond as soon as the dart has taken effect and the long-sleeve turtleneck that buckles down the back can be safely removed.*

PalaceGuard
06-23-2005, 08:43 PM
jseal – don’t take it so hard! :) The conservative justices on the court have had a good run for the last few years, strengthening individual rights and even State’s rights! When’s the last time you heard THAT happening?

So this time the liberal justices snuck in a group rights win over the individual. Sucks for the individual, but remember that humans are herd animals. They like to congregate and hang out with people who are like themselves. That’s why we are here at Pixies. There has always been a tension between the natural desire of humans to be a part of a group and an equally natural desire to be an individual. This time the group boinked the individual – big time! :D

Justice Stevens wrote local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. Har Har de Har Har! Jseal – you hail from Maryland – do you trust your local officials more than a federal judge?

dicksbro – they’re rulers, that’s all. Politicians rule by passing laws they think are good. Judges rule by making rulings they think are good. Conservative judges and politicos try to retain values. Liberals like trying out new things. Each group fixes the FUBARS of the other.

cowgirltease
06-23-2005, 08:53 PM
I've heard rumors that Sandra Day O'Connor may leave the Supreme Court ... I sure hope not. Sounds like she was the voice of reason.
I hope not.....she is the only voice of reason up there. :(

gekkogecko
06-24-2005, 09:17 AM
This time the group boinked the individual – big time! :D

Judges rule by making rulings they think are good. Conservative judges and politicos try to retain values. Liberals like trying out new things.

The characterization of both this issue and of the "groups" involved is not quite accurate (but close). At root of the issue is the "right" of the government (only theoretically representing the interests of the population as a whole) to sieze privately-held property in order to hand it over to ANOTHER GROUP; IOW, the property is not in any way being used for a public interest, but will be used to further the iterests of a private group with much more access to influence and power in the political process.

It is a triumph of the upper economic class over the masses in another round of the never-ending class war.

"Conservative" judges/officials don't really try to retain values; "Liberal" judges/officials don't really try out new things. Each group tries to impose its views and values on the society as a whole.

Welcome back to the class war. If for some reason, you thought that it had ended, have a rather rude awakening.

PalaceGuard
06-24-2005, 08:25 PM
Gekkogecko – I see you prefer the political model over the sociology model! :D

Can’t say as I agree with you about the conservative vs. liberal definitions. I don’t see rulers as being necessarily oppressive, but I get the impression that you do – the class warfare thing.

Still think Joe & Jane Average got boinked on that last ruling tho. Stay tuned!

campingboy
06-28-2005, 07:47 PM
I was listening to this on the radio tonight

"A revolting development. After US Supreme Court Justice David Souter votes to turn private home into an office complex, a private developer attempts to seize Souter's home to build a hotel."

It is a group out of California. They are getting a lot of people giving money to the cause. The Hotel will be called 'Lost Liberty’ and the dinning room will be called 'Just Deserts’. They have approached the local municipality to start the application process. It’s going to be interesting to see where this goes.

Lilith
06-28-2005, 08:36 PM
I heard this story today too. Crazy.

PantyFanatic
06-28-2005, 09:09 PM
I only hope it's more than a story!