Posted on 07/14/2005 9:51:41 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
President Clinton yesterday added his voice to a growing chorus of Americans of various political persuasions who disagree with a recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld the government's use of eminent domain powers to take private property from one owner and give it to another.
Speaking to a conference of liberal college students, ...Clinton stated his disagreement with the court's decision last month, by a 5-4 vote, to allow a Connecticut city to carry out a redevelopment project by seizing 15 properties over the owners' objections.
...Clinton's views on the issue did not appear ironclad. After offering his assessment, he added, "I might be wrong." He also flubbed the name of the city involved, which was New London, not Norwalk.
In his speech, ...Clinton also criticized press coverage of statements his wife, Senator Clinton, has made recently in which she appeared to stray from a doctrinaire line advanced by abortion rights advocates...
"I wouldn't make that old lady in Norwalk sell her house," the former president said. "She was all 70 years or 80 years old. I thought it was wrong."
The former president used the example to illustrate his belief that few Americans are strictly orthodox in their political views. He said it was the first time he could remember agreeing with a dissent filed by two of the court's most conservative members, Justices Scalia and Thomas.
"I never thought it would happen," said ...Clinton, who once taught constitutional law... in Arkansas.
Property-rights activists, who have deplored the ruling, said they were delighted and not entirely surprised to have ...Clinton speak out against the decision.
"That underscores what we've seen since the opinion was announced, this outrage from liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats alike..." said Chip Miller, a spokesman for a conservative legal group, the Institute for Justice.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
The great Oz has spoken!! We can all go home now.
"I might be wrong..."
Well, let's try to firm up his opinion. I think the city of Chappaqua should take over his mansion for a park and pay him a pennny on the dollar. And then, Harlem could confiscated his office and Georgetown could take Hillary's digs and build a school "for the children."
I would like the Japanese view on eminent domain.
There isn't any.
One city wanted to build an airport runway, but could not do so as some property owners said that they wouldn't sell.
So it was stopped.
Why did his Administration not file an amicus brief?
The President himself has condemned land for private use.
"I wouldn't make that old lady in Norwalk sell her house. . .without gettin' me some first!," the former president said.
Speaking of Chappaqua, HRC coerced the US government to pay for her personal swimming pool there.
Part of her argument was "everyone has a swimming pool".
The other part of the argument was that it would be difficult for the Secret Service to protect her in a public pool.
Over the years, I have come to appreciate that perhaps it was in the public interest to be coerced to fund a private pool for her. Not that I like the tactic.
That's the game.
Well not himself.
Interesting post, thanks.
Once again the Impeached One caught with his pants down: "Do as ah say, not as ah do."
Hillary the hungry, hungry hippo?
Nobody would go swimming if she were there.
So...the government is saving the pool owners money by building her her own. (tongue in cheek)
Well he did own the Texas Rangers when they built their new ball park.
Amen! I've noticed that these same @$$-holes almost never refer to George W. as President Bush!! Their bias is palpable!
And the Clymers always take the opportunity to say "MR. Bush".
Bill, I still have my six pack in the fridge . When you pass on ( to hell ) I swear I will drink all six, pi$$ on your grave , and leave you the cans .
"Hey, man, I'll tell you what, I like that really hot-looking chick in the second row of my 'con-law' class. Maybe we could compare briefs? Hehehehehehe." -Bubba Clinton, legal scholar and star witness
I thought I would test your assumption, and, of course, it is nothing but urban legend. Below are links to current stories on cnn, msnbc, abc, and the la times. Each one of them refers to "president bush" the first time he is mentioned in the story.
I realize debunking articles of faith such as the one you are spouting will not be popular here at FR, but we can most likely find actual examples of bias without resorting to making things up.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/13/cia.leaks.ap/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8569167/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=938181
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove14jul14,1,3000064.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true
Actually, I notice it more whenever (the rare times) I watch the evening news. The president (it seems to me, go on a fact-finding mission if you must) is always referred to as Mr. Bush. Just seeing the words "President Clinton" together gives me the willies.
Right. I would gather that a lot of us here may agree that eminent domain can be an abuse under any circumstances and most of us here agree that Kelo was decided badly and most definitely was an abuse of power.
We also probably agree that it was an important decision.
It's good to hold people accountable.
I am a little confused about your comments. Yes, it's wrong to use public funds for a ball park. So yes, George W. Bush was wrong to ask for public funding and was wrong to ask for a tax increase.
Here's another perspective-- if Bush didn't issue an amicus brief or other comment against the decision, doesn't that show that he is not following a double standard?
So we can agree to disagree with both Clinton and Bush, but note that at least Bush isn't pretending something different now, even if we don't like it?
On the few occasions where Clinton (him or her) makes a clear statement about American law or politics, Clinton is inferentially condemning him/herself. (Take several goes at that sentence. It DOES parse. LOL.)
Congressman Billybob
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.