Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-33 last
To: TheOtherOne
Amazing. We own property by the grace of the State. And this from a "conservative" Court.
42 posted on
06/23/2005 2:31:50 PM PDT by
IronJack
To: TheOtherOne
Every property owner in the country that has a flag should hang it upside down. It is a demonstration that will NOT go unnoticed.
43 posted on
06/23/2005 2:35:15 PM PDT by
Roccus
(Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati)
To: TheOtherOne
I have already heard some of the morons calling this a power grab by the Republicans on the supreme court. While Kennedy and Souter were appointed by republicans they have proved time and again to be internationalists and leftists. George HW Bush put the nail in the coffin with his appeasement to the rats when he nominated this fool. Along with the ADA, Bush's' supreme court choice will go down as his greatest failure. He had an opportunity to change the court for a long time and he surely did. His brand of spineless appeasement got us another liberal on the court that quotes foreign law. We got what we expected from the Clinton appointees. There should be congressional action taken on this subject, but I doubt there will be any. Most of those fools now believe the Supreme court is the final say on any matter when the truth is we the people "were". This is what we get for ever giving in. Vote for a moderate and you vote for the left. By meeting the left halfway, we compromise and then lose in the end. I am going to go out to my front yard and pull my pants down and bend over. I suggest you all do the same.
49 posted on
06/23/2005 2:56:47 PM PDT by
satchmodog9
(Murder and weather are our only news)
To: #1CTYankee; .303 Brit; 2nd amendment mama; Agamemnon; AGBRUHN; always vigilant; Anarchist; ...
Connecticut ping!
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
50 posted on
06/23/2005 2:57:18 PM PDT by
nutmeg
("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton 6/28/04)
To: StarFan; Dutchy; alisasny; BobFromNJ; BUNNY2003; Cacique; Clemenza; Coleus; cyborg; DKNY; ...
ping!
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my miscellaneous ping list.
51 posted on
06/23/2005 2:57:49 PM PDT by
nutmeg
("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton 6/28/04)
To: TheOtherOne
This is really going to wallop property owners in California. As I understand it, Prop 13 currently bases property tax increases on the assessed value of a residence at
the most recent time a residence was sold. Thus, a house in Davis that sold for $80,000 and has a current value of $650,000 can only be taxed on an assessed value of $80,000. Since SCOTUS now views municipal revenue raising as a valid basis for exercising eminent domain, there would be little to keep Davis from exercising eminent domain on "undervalued" properties, thereby forcing its residents to sell and repurchase and get stuck with about ten times more real estate tax than they are paying now.
Davis, of course, is only an example. This odious process could be used thoughout the entire state. Every California property owner now has a large target on his or her back. That's why it's so important to elect senators who, unlike Boxer and Finestein, will vote to break the DemonRats' filibusters.
To: TheOtherOne
I read this on the CNN Money web site and was appalled. Now, our government not only has the ability to tax us out of our domociles, but they give themselves the right to overtly take our property, purely for their own financial gains and that of their monied supporters. Emminent domain is a farce, being used to by those with the financial/political backing to raze the properties of those who don't have the same financial backing.
Those same "Justices" should vacate their own lavish dwellings for a Target, Wal-Mart, or Home Depot!
Perhaps it is time to buy more ammo.
57 posted on
06/23/2005 3:20:59 PM PDT by
Sarajevo
To: TheOtherOne
Indeed, while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed use by the public as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Thus the Court finally admits that they have been making law, rather than interpreting it,applying it, or enforcing it. They've been changing meanings in those cases, like this one, where they should have been applying the original meanings. They've been doing those things for over 100 years.
I don't know how we fix this structurally, but we got git 'er done somehow.
66 posted on
06/23/2005 3:39:46 PM PDT by
El Gato
To: TheOtherOne
Probably one of the WORST Supreme Court decisions ever rendered. It's only slightly less odious than Roe v. Wade!
I'm just sick about this...
72 posted on
06/23/2005 3:47:30 PM PDT by
GatorGirl
(God Bless Pope Benedict XVI)
To: TheOtherOne
Well once the commerce clause was expanded to include everything the Goverment wanted to control, how long did you think it would take to find a clause that could be expanded to include everything the government wanted to take?
75 posted on
06/23/2005 3:57:39 PM PDT by
THEUPMAN
(#### comment deleted by moderator)
To: BerthaDee
76 posted on
06/23/2005 3:57:52 PM PDT by
Finger Monkey
(H.R. 25, Fair Tax Act - A consumption tax which replaces the income tax, SS tax, death tax, etc.)
To: TheOtherOne
Locked and loaded. Molon Labe. I won't go down without a fight.
97 posted on
06/23/2005 10:03:37 PM PDT by
P8riot
(Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional.)
To: TheOtherOne
Locked and loaded. Molon Labe. I won't go down without a fight.
98 posted on
06/23/2005 10:06:07 PM PDT by
P8riot
(Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-33 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson