I guess you could call it a troll poll too!
They can't resist knowing it is anonymous yet it still tells us the current troll level.
Alright! line up you slimy trolls, were taken a head count!
Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.
"Well, it would facilitate our communication if you would just frame your position instead of meandering along aimlessly. When I need to organize my thoughts, I like to use numbered items."
(1) The Supreme Court of the United States is the supreme law of the land in America. Nothing can override it. Nothing can defy it. Nothing and nobody ever has since Lincoln.
(2) It will remain this way, because Americans do not want to do any of the things that would be required to change the situation.
>>>Sadly, We The People cannot. But our elected representatives can!
My state has been enforcing eminent domain way before this ruling. Our representatives would not be of any help :(
"Nor do I want mob rule.
"
Me, niether, but I'll take a mob of the people over the mob in Washington anyday.
Lousy DUmmie trolls?
Odd thing is over half of DU, based on my observations, are angry about this decision too.
In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.
The fly in your balm ["But if the President overrules Supreme Court decisions by ordering the Executive Branch to not enforce them ..."] is that the State of Conneticut is actually enforcing this and the activist/unconstitutional subpremes merely placed their stamp of 'divided' approval upon it.
Pssst, Norm. Remember when Inglewood voters shot down that proposed WalMart? I just had a flashback to the Rodney King riots...
Very good point. I just read Justice Thomas' dissent and it was a very compelling argument.
But FDR managed to overrule wise decisions on the part of the judiciary. ;-)
"Is it time YET???'
Hell YES!!
TLR
"Protecting private homes would be a fine cause for the current US President to take up in vetoing this decision of the Supreme Court." You will have to explain how the President could 'veto' a ruling not involving him or the U.S. Justice Department directly.
There was actually talk within this thread of that very thing. I can't remember where. I have been away for over 3 hours and just came back. This is insane.
Why would you think democrats would support this? Taking houses away from the poor to give to Wal-Mart corp??? That sounds like it has a "compassionate conservative" slant to it. I only "kinda" support it if there's significant public amenities in the form of parks, schools, recreation, roadways etc. to be gained from it.
>>>>Clearly the President would have to take care not to abuse this power, because he could be removed if he casually used the political veto he has over the court. But he does in fact have this power. Abraham Lincoln used it effectively. Nobody has since.
Can you explain that part a little more?
Thanks.
"You are one confused dude!
The Congress has authority over the supreme court, according to the constitution"
Yes, the US Constitution does say that.
The US Supreme Court routinely strikes down acts of Congress.
Congress has never nullified an act of the Supreme Court.
It has, at best, passed legislation which attempts to get around the Supreme Court's decision.
In many cases, the Supreme Court has struck down such follow-on legislation as well.
Example: abortion.
Every Congressional or local effort to curtail it since Roe v. Wade has been struck down by the Supreme Court.
So yes, the Constitution says things.
But the historical record says that Congress always obeys the Supreme Court's orders. Congress never issues orders to the Supreme Court. And when it passes laws that might restrict the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court routinely strikes them down as unconstitutional.
I am not confused.
Rather, there is a fundamental tension between what the Constitution says on the paper document, and what many Americans here think it ought to mean, on the one hand, and the reality of Supreme Court power on the other.
Hey, follow the rules ... shouldn't it be
FRrrrreakin?
Here's the "C" I left out of Lieberman's state.
Their liberal judges ruled this way.
Plus things I have heard over at the DUmp including
1. It will generate more taxes to help the poor
2. Private property is anti-democratic anyway
Just damn...again. Let us sit back and watch Hillary come on tv and condemn the SC decision. This is getting worse and worse. Now is the time to get our hands on Hill's thesis from Wellesley.
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.