[SonOfTheRepublic]

Supreme Court Justices by a 5-4 ruling gave legal Authorization to commercial land developers, to sieze their property at any time for the good of economic development and the community. Several of the justices have prime real estate property that many commercial land developers are lining up for to sieze and turn into sprawling malls, resorts, museums and its been said, a high tech parking lot for government officials, designed to take them by bus to their individual places of work. Bids are beginning to pour in from all over the nation as this is posted live, on 6-28-2005

[grey_whiskers]

Excellent!

Remember, this is why they had to remove the 10 Commandments from the Courts--so the developers wouldn't have to read
"Thou Shalt Not Covet"

"Thou Shalt Not Steal"

"Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness"

Full Disclosure: I'd like to get the popcorn and watch, but I'll bet the Justices will come up with tortured reasoning to exempt their OWN homes, without establishing precedent.

Second Disclosure: If that happens, then if Bush had balls, he'd authorize Federal Marshals to oversee the tearing down of the Justices' homes. "It's their ruling, let them enforce it!"

[Juan Medén]

Let's start a campaing to make sure that someone with a t-shirt displaying the Ten Commandments be seated in every courtroom in the nation during every open session.They can't stop freedome of expression -- yet.

[cricket]

Given how outrageous this ruling is. . .can ANYthing be done to alter/change the language. . .put restrictions on - even if by return to Court.

. . .do anything to change the impact of this decision - besides that is. . .the retribution of making these Justices pay by taking their homes for a 'higher good'?

Some satisfaction there, for sure; but this ruling has to be dealt with; but is it possible?