Ruling triggers anger, worry in Lee[County] (Cities drooling over eminent domain)

The News Press.com | 6-24-05 | News Press Staff

[Crazieman]

News Press Article (copyright)

[Crazieman]

Every article that I've read that has featured a "city official" has them blabbing about how much they've wanted to condemn this or that and they're going to move on it right away thanks to this ruling.

Including another one earlier - Freeport, south of Houston, they want to condemn 2 seafood companies to stick in a private marina.

This is serious.

[ovrtaxt]

bttt

[Happy2BMe]

High court's property decision stirs anger

* * * * *

Free Republic Opinion Poll: Do you agree with today's SCOTUS ruling that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development?

Composite Opinion
Hell NO!	89.7%		2,288
No	7.8%		200
Yes	1.2%		30
Pass	0.7%		17
Undecided	0.6%		16
	100.0%		2,551
Member Opinion
Hell NO!	90.1%		1,788
No	7.2%		143
Yes	1.2%		23
Undecided	0.8%		16
Pass	0.7%		14
	100.0%		1,984
Non-Member Opinion
Hell NO!	88.2%		500
No	10.1%		57
Yes	1.2%		7
Pass	0.5%		3
Undecided	0.0%		0
	100.0%		567

[ More Opinion Polls · Return to Forum ]

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Party and politics don't matter either.
Anybody you elect automatically becomes a grabber.
None of them respects limited government anymore.

[TXBSAFH]

This is the second worse supreme court ruling ever, second only to Roe V Wade. It is time to demand our state and federal government to restrict ED. That and to look at impeachment for the 5 justices.

[hershey]

In time, after a change in court makeup, I suspect the Supremes will revisit the issue. They'll change their minds on this, but untold damage will have been done. It's such a stupid decision. Activist court, seizure of private property, in your face. Unbelievable.

[deadeyedawg]

Not to advocate violence but if a company seizes MY home, you can BET your bottom dollar I'm gonna BURN DOWN the CEO's house. That way, he/she can experience what it's like to lose where you live and have no choice in the matter.

[Happy2BMe]

"That and to look at impeachment for the 5 justices."

========================

Just won't happen.

People are suddenly shocked into what has been occurring for the past fifty years and only now begin to comprehend the depth of the matter since it suddenly affects what is very near-and-dear to them personally - their immediate private property rights.

Too late. You know waken to the reality that American has succumbed to an oligarchic form of government.

(Before you refute this - just think of all the referendums, petitions, national cause drives, etc. brought to vote by MILLIONS of Americans that have been completely and utterly squashed by a select few sitting in robes in the various appellate courts throughout the land . .)

==================================

This form of government is called an "OLIGARCHY."

They have ruled this nation for the past 50 years.

ol•i•gar•chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

sov•er•eign•ty
Variant(s): also sov•ran•ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is SOVEREIGN; especially : an autonomous state

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

In the FR members poll, HELL NO and NO are combining for better than 97 percent of the vote. I can't recall a margin like that before. This ruling has really struck a nerve. This story has legs. Speaking purely from a strategic point of view, it couldn't come at a better time if we have a Supreme Court retirement.

This 5-4 ruling was made by the five most liberal justices on the Supreme Court - no doubt about it. If Bush actually nominates a Scalia or Thomas conservative and Democrats try to filibuster, Republicans should exploit this latest ruling for all it's worth in the media, then twist the arms of Lindsey Graham and someone else to go NUCLEAR.

[TXBSAFH]

It is not to late. This is how much this ruling affect people. The libs at the DUmp are as mad at this as we are. When this happens we can get laws passsed to stop this.

[Arkie2]

I read on another thread that the Texas legislature is already moving to implement laws prohibiting seizure of private property for commercial development.

The fight to protect property rights is now going on in each state. If you want these kinds of seizures stopped youll have to take it up with your elected representatives.

[Happy2BMe]

"In the FR members poll, HELL NO and NO are combining for better than 97 percent of the vote. I can't recall a margin like that before. This ruling has really struck a nerve. This story has legs."

===========================

FReepers have come close to 97% on other key national emergency issues in the past. This particualr issue hits home with a great impact than most because that is exactly where it land - YOUR HOME!

===========================

"Speaking purely from a strategic point of view, it couldn't come at a better time if we have a Supreme Court retirement."

===========================

There is just one problem with that. The President and the two other governmental Bodies can hardly agree with what day of the week it is - let alone agree with what is good for the continued survival of this Republic.

[Happy2BMe]

"I read on another thread that the Texas legislature is already moving to implement laws prohibiting seizure of private property for commercial development."

==============================

What good will that do for the people of the Great State of Texas when their judges will simply be overruled by the 11th Cirucuit Court of Appeals (who march to the drumbeat of the U.S.S.C.)?

[devolve]

The Pelican Brief

Seven Days In May

The Star Chamber

The Federalist Papers

Reds

[Fresh Wind]

The libs at the DUmp are as mad at this as we are.

Yeah, but they're still blaming Bush and the Republicans. Quoth one DUmmy:

"Either the Repugs directly chose them, or they forced the hand of Democratic presidents by forcing them to choose conservatives. There are no 'liberal' members of the supreme court, only some repug choices who sometimes don't vote th party line, but they are all conservatives. Even the most 'liberal' ones are at best middle of the road.

Folks, we have a Repug Supreme Court. Already. It will only get worse before it might get better. The only way we will ever get anyone decent on that court is to have the White House and the Senate."

[Arkie2]

The supremes were ruling on a state law I believe which they refused to strike down. Their ruling does not in any way prevent state legislatures from passing laws prohibiting these takings.

[Happy2BMe]

"Their ruling does not in any way prevent state legislatures from passing laws prohibiting these takings."

===========================

I understand what you are saying sir.

The U.S.S.C. didn't make this ruling as an exception.

It will become precedent.

[Arkie2]

I think you're exagerating. Take a deep breath and look at what's going on in Texas (and other states I hope) before you lose faith.

[Happy2BMe]

Do you believe the U.S.S.C. will revisit / remove this ruling any time soon?

(I don't.)