Posted on 06/23/2005 8:10:25 PM PDT by andie74
As in low income housing in Indian Wells, CA. May be the wealthiest area per square foot in the USA (I am guessing on that, but Bill Gates mother lived there)
This shyster and others will pay the price one day for their lack of vision.
June 23, 2005. A date which will live in infamy......
hey great idea, let's go all the way. there is church down the street and i don't like how they run business. i guess i can go down and take it and put up a gas station./sarcasm
i truely believe this will cause an end to the US as we knew it. here comes the revolution.
My understanding is that those two were suggested to Buba by none other than Orin Hatch himself.
You got that right.
We can't drill in ANWR, because we might upset some caribou. Even though it would benefit the people.
We can't have windmills in Walter Cronkite's Cape Cod playground because it might interfere with his view. Even though it would benefit the people.
We can't drill off of California or Florida, because Babs Streisand and the other fat cats don't like it. Even though it would benefit the people.
What in the Sam Hill is going on here?
What are they really after with this ruling? What is it that we are not looking at? We fix our gaze upon the issue at hand. We look with a magnifying glass at what the supreme courts decision could mean regarding our homes and lands. But what else could they really be "after" when this body of justices thumb their noses at the "law of the land" in such a blasphemous way? If they don't have any respect for the law, what then are they really ultimately after in all of this? When you have a handful of people casting opinions that will impact the entire nation in the coming months and those people don't give a damn about righteous judgement, what are they ultimately after? What is the ultimate logical conclusion to their thinking? Is it really about money, land, property, rights, business, the good of the community? All of those are their moral argument. Its time to start thinking like our adversary and figure out where they are really ultimately going with this kind of rubbish. Their opinion today was criminal, illegal and Unconstitutional. The free land grab doctrine espoused today by the socialist communist supreme court members is not about the United States of America nor is it about "our" Constitution, its about someone elses constitution, one that abhors the "idea" of America in principle and in deed.
Just exactly who are you people who reside on the court of the supreme court of the "......"? What court are you in reality? Who do you really answer to? What does your flag that you fly really look like? Is it red, does it have a hammer on it? What about that farming tool that you incorporate into your flag, I've always seen that tool to imply anything but farming. For me it embodies the farming/harvesting of human rights and human beings around the world.
What are you really after?
The God of America, He is watching you. As are the people of America. We are indeed a God fearing nation, people who are keenly aware of a fox lurking around in the hen house, a wolf, seeking whom it may devour.
God is watching you...
So now a town/city/county/state can condemn anyone's private property to build a Wal-mart?
I personally believe that there should be some kind of limitations on the number of churches allowed in a city. I live in a town that has very few businesses, many residential homes, and many, many many churches- all of which pay absolutely no tax. I know someone who worked for a church for years, lost his job, and had zero unemployment bennies because churches are not included in unemployment taxes or insurance.
Oh, don't worry; we know there could never be any nefarious motives among local politicians in this country. It will be administered truly for the good of all, with no other concerns involved.
KOFF. KOFF. KOFF-KOFF.
MM
Not just a Wal-Mart, but coming soon, to the boonies...cell phone towers!
No one is exempt from this ruling.
The problem is that the majority appears to think that the legislature (or in this case, the private, unelected development company) should be given a great deal of deference in the decision of what would be best for the city. Who is to say that these people aren't in Pfizer's pocket? Who is to say that the city council isn't?
I've blogged on this isse and included large excerpts of the Court's 58-page decision, including both O'Connor's and Thomas' dissents. Here are the first and last paragraphs:
OK, Hell has officially frozen over. I agree with O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in the eminent domain case of KELO ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON ET AL (slip opinion, .PDF). I agree with Justice O'Connor's eloquent dissent (which Justices Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas joined) almost in its entirety. Justice Thomas picked far more nits in his separate dissent and I found the bulk of his reasoning questionable, but even so, I can find some few points with which to agree.You can see the entire very long post here.The dissenters took particular note that the petitioners in this case were lower-income people living in an economically depressed -- but not "blighted" -- neighborhood, upon which the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer had set its sights. The city of New London, CT successfully argued that the eminent domain taking of private property (in this case, residences which had been in their respective families for several generations) could be justified even when there was no direct public benefit beyond being part of a larger economic revitalization plan.
[major snip]
This decision is a travesty, and I hope it is revisited and corrected quickly. Otherwise, the corporate owners of our government officials will call up their lackeys in the city halls and state houses to wipe out entire neighborhoods on the strength of vaporous promise of jobs and increased taxes. The Court has cut a faustian deal with developers to keep inflating the real estate bubble, but the Court's soul is not all that is at stake.
There is also a very good post on the Daily Kos disagreeing with this decision, which has aerial photos of the area in question and goes into some depth about the specific neighborhoods. I have also crossposted there (I am a Kossack, after all). :)
Poor reasoning, the 5th Amendment is clear and Thomas explains it, private property rights are just that rights that governments can not abridge absent a compelling reason and "public use".
I suggest you read the dissents again.
Just wondering, is there any remedial action avaivable from US or State legislatures?
Well, an amendment that clearly spells out that the state cannot seize property for private interests, for one. Either on the federal or state level.
Secondly, there is impeachment for those who do not interpret the constitution properly.
BTW, this kind of thing has been going on in Europe forever.
This is called "Fascism".
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.