Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Tyranny (Thieving Property Rights, Destorying the United States)
Neoperspectives ^ | 5/24/05 | me

Posted on 06/24/2005 10:04:20 AM PDT by traviskicks

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
Was so fired up about this, I had to write something... If I'm posting this in the wrong place feel free to pull it...
1 posted on 06/24/2005 10:04:20 AM PDT by traviskicks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

I blame the Democrats for this decision. Why? The answer is can be summed up in one word: BORK.

Robert Bork, a highly distinguished and extremely qualified legal scholar, was vilified by the Democrats when Reagan nominated him to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. The nomination hearings in the Senate were so filled with character assasination, nasty innuendos and dirty tricks that a new verb was created - "to bork" someone is to run their name through the mud for political purposes.

After Bork's nomination failed in the Senate, due to the vilifying treatment he received, Reagan then nominated Kennedy, who was later confirmed.

I cannot fathom a Justice Bork siding on the wrong side of this decision - as Kennedy did.

So, whenever someone from DU or other leftist organization complains about this decision, remind them of Judge Bork and how this decision would have been different if he, and not Kennedy, were on the Supreme Court.


2 posted on 06/24/2005 10:05:16 AM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Proud Member: Internet Pajama Wearers for Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
The deal is the Liberal majority on the court said it's quite all right for the rich and powerful to steal from the poor and weak.

No one should be surprised with this sort of statement from a bunch of pro-abortion ghouls.

The Revolution cannot come too soon eh?!

3 posted on 06/24/2005 10:08:26 AM PDT by muawiyah (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

I have already written a letter to my Representative and both my Senators and faxed it. I told them that while Congress fiddled with the Flag Burning amendment, the Supreme Court burned the Constitution. One would curtail First Amendment rights, and the other curtails property rights. It's unconscionable that a private party would be given access to the law, lawyers, and power to compel by force that the government has to gain private profit, instead of having to negotiate with the property owner and satisfy them directly. I went on for a page. My Representative voted for the Flag Burning amendment (which I am dead set against). I asked all 3 if they had the integrity to choose what is right against what they think will get them votes, and to introduce an amendment that will actually matter and protect all Americans against government intrusion.


4 posted on 06/24/2005 10:09:27 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket

This decision shows that the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.


5 posted on 06/24/2005 10:09:44 AM PDT by Straight8 (I am unique, just like everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket

Robert Bork disagrees with the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Is he someone we really would have wanted to be a supreme court justice?


6 posted on 06/24/2005 10:09:54 AM PDT by Truthsayer20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

I meant the greed of the few!
0ops!


7 posted on 06/24/2005 10:11:45 AM PDT by Straight8 (I am unique, just like everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

ping


8 posted on 06/24/2005 10:12:03 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/canadahealthcare.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
VERY MAD!!!

I just called my two republican(supposedly)senators from Missouri - Bond and Talent, to inquire about their positions on the supreme court ruling. Talked to a couple staffers.

Heres the result:
Jim Talent:We don't know what his position is on the Supreme Court ruling.

Chris Bond: He doesn't have a position on the ruling.

No Position? Unbelievable!
9 posted on 06/24/2005 10:13:48 AM PDT by Mulch (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
Why even bother with real estate agents any more? Why would a developer try to voluntarily purchase properties when he can simply have the state seize them? Who decides what the seized properties are worth?

Why even bother owning property now?

10 posted on 06/24/2005 10:15:27 AM PDT by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
Looks like they're hanging us with the rope we manufactured.

Untill we elect real representatives , and not political elite rulling classes, this will get worse and worse.


"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." ---- Abraham Lincoln


Seven Dead Monkeys Page O Tunes

11 posted on 06/24/2005 10:17:15 AM PDT by rawcatslyentist ("If it's brown, drink it down. If it's black send it back." Homer's guide to drinking in Springfield)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
This PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVENCES has only 650 signatures at this time - WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT NOW!

To:  U. S. Congress

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVENCES

We the People of the United States, do hereby demand that our duly elected representatives in both houses of Congress, initiate impeachment proceedings against the following Supreme Court Justices:

John Paul Stevens
Anthony Kennedy
David H. Souter
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer

We, the undersigned, consider the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. New London, 04-108, rendered June 23, 2005, not only unacceptable, but to be in criminal violation of the Justice's oaths to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Be advised that We the People regard elected officials to be our public servants. Failure to take action against the Justices specified shall be considered support for the decision rendered in the aforementioned case, and will result in our resolve to ensure your defeat in the next election.

Being from myriad political and ideological spectra, we are united in our belief that our right to own property is inalienable.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

PLEASE sign the petition - we need to let Congress know of our outrage.

12 posted on 06/24/2005 10:26:10 AM PDT by RebelTex (Freedom is everyone's right - and everyone's responsibility!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RebelTex

signed. I'll try to pass that link around too.


13 posted on 06/24/2005 10:32:18 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/canadahealthcare.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RebelTex
Signed it! Lets throw them out now before they make another ruling.
14 posted on 06/24/2005 10:33:42 AM PDT by Mulch (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket
cannot fathom a Justice Bork siding on the wrong side of this decision - as Kennedy did.

Given that Bork swallows the "the 2nd Amendment is only about the state militia" twaddle and pretty much prostituted himself during the Microsoft antitrust fight, I can quite easily see him voting with the anti-private-property side.

15 posted on 06/24/2005 11:27:22 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
I have a solution.


16 posted on 06/24/2005 11:28:25 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Looks like the Supreme Court wants to play Cowboys and Homeowners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RebelTex

POST A THREAD!


17 posted on 06/24/2005 11:28:59 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Looks like the Supreme Court wants to play Cowboys and Homeowners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher
And you once claimed I was to hyperbolic.

I now think I wasn't extreme enough.

18 posted on 06/24/2005 11:49:49 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Looks like the Supreme Court wants to play Cowboys and Homeowners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket

Bork has little respect for individual rights. Nor does he favor having the Court strike down local laws, regardless of the constitutionality of those laws. He'd've voted with the liberals for sure.


19 posted on 06/24/2005 1:58:55 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

"Do it or die."

OK, OK - I posted my own thread here : SIGN THE SCJ IMPEACHMENT PETITION! (VANITY)

BTW, I gave you credit for it, LOL.

20 posted on 06/24/2005 3:20:46 PM PDT by RebelTex (Freedom is everyone's right - and everyone's responsibility!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson