[beaureguard]

Boortz Ping!



If you want on or off Boortz ping list, FRmail me. This is not a high volume ping.

[jigsaw]

We all live in Pubic Housing now.

[Leatherneck_MT]

It's time for far more than this, it's time to shitcan that POS called the SCOTUS and replace it with something elected, either that or we just need to scrap this entire government from the top down and create something new.

[conservativecorner]

It will be judicial tyranny that brings this country down. Every day brings another nail in the coffin for our Constitution.

[Wolfie]

Old news, really.

F.E.A.R.

[OpusatFR]

Essentially, there are no rights to private property in America.

Why are we putting up with this?

[Alberta's Child]

Under this Supreme court ruling the city can just seize the property from Belinda and hand it over to the developer to build those homes. Belinda has no way to stop this action. The city will have to play Belinda "just compensation," but that compensation will never match what Belinda might have earned by selling the property herself. Besides ... she didn't want to sell in the first place. It was her property, and she wanted to keep it. Now it can be taken ... just like that.

It's time to start turning this Supreme Court ruling on its head in cases like this. The developer in this hypothetical case will be sh!t out of luck -- and the politicians who are backing him will be thrown out of office on their @sses, when Belinda gets Wal-Mart or Home Depot to tender an offer on the land that the developer coveted for his "three or four large homes."

[Conservatrix]

I am so sick this morning over this.

Imagine what Her Majesty would do if she were elected and this were in force.

[Bring Back Old Sparky]

What I am having a hard time understanding is why are the liberals not howling about this. If you seize a number of $40,000 houses to build a golf course and $1,000,000 houses, isn't that a transfer from the poor to the rich?

Boortz seems to think that it might be a fair trade to allow Hillary to become president, trading this for Libertarian Party gains (and scaring the crap out of Republicans). I hope he notes that every SCOTUS justice that Slick Willy appointed came down on the wrong side of this issue.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

Okay, Freepers...so now what happens to churches? Churches don't pay taxes. Is there going to be a church property grab?

[Bear_Slayer]

There are eight states in the nation where the use of eminent domain for private development is all but prohibited by law. Those states are Washington, Montana, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and Florida. If your state is not on this list, it's time for a little political activism

Can you clarify this with regard to the state of Montana? Are you saying that this SCOTUS ruling does not apply or is limited in Montana? Thanks,

[taxed2death]

"Bottom line: If you own property, and the government wants that property --- you're screwed"


Actually, you never really OWN property here in the US. You "Buy" the right to use it, with restrictions. If you stop paying property taxes, you break the contract with the government and lose your use of the property.

[Hostage]

This is unbelievable. I'm still in shock, don't know what to say.

Maybe I will end up as a media created nutcase in disobedience against government special commercial interests.

Saw that one of the Connecticut homeowners, a party to the suit, is not leaving their home. Maybe I should throw it in with them.

I can see the headlines now:

"Right wing extremists holed up in comdemned home, reports of child abuse inside, Attorney General Alberto Reno orders FBI-BATF-DHS to lay siege on home."

But really I am chilled by yesterday's news. My properties are eye-candy to special interests and I can imagine they could use yesterday's decision to remove me from 'their proposed acquisition'.

I am not kidding, I may not die quietly in this life. The only thing I don't understand completely is if the action by the Connecticut authorities was to eliminate 'blight' and who is to say what is 'blight'? If my home is tidy and well kept but my neighbors are in decay, can the government remove me from my home for their 'blight'? I think that's what yesterday's message says.

Often when people take it upon themselves to clean up a 'blighted' neighborhood they are rewarded with an increase in property taxes. That happened to me. So blight in my view is linked with tax policies.

I guess if yesterday's decision is carried to its extreme, there could be riots unless eminent domain is used in small tracts where homeowners are not able to get larger communities to come to their aid.

This one has me scared. I can't imagine that all I have sweated for is at risk of takeover by the government for tax revenues. I live in an upscale waterfront mixed residential and cafe district and I can see them rezoning me as commercial and then taking over.

I have ideas of selling all and moving to Australia or New Zealand. I know that there are property rights there. Unless Americans make a successful stand against this insane ruling, many of us will have to emigrate and find a new America. Comments?

[sgtbono2002]

What good would it be for State Legislatures to outlaw taking land from Private owners when rich people wishing to buy it would take the ruling to the Federal Supreme Court and have it banished , just like they did when they allowed this to begin with.

No what is needed is a wholesale uprising of taxpayers. What is needed is for no one to pay their taxes come April 15th. That will get their attention.

[AK-47]

I'd like to see the homes of the justices be bulldozed, but we all know that ain't going to happen.

[Dead Corpse]

Boortz knocks another one out of the ballpark.

[Paleo Conservative]

Even though the Supremes approved these government confiscations of private property, the five justices who voted with the majority did say that they didn't like it. They encouraged local jurisdictions to pass laws severely restricting these seizures. There are eight states in the nation where the use of eminent domain for private development is all but prohibited by law.

Even enhanced state protections of private property won't protect a against eminent domain takings by the federal government or the UN!

[Victor]

What can be done down the road to reverse this nonsense?

[Centurion2000]

bump

[musanon]

" --- Now ... is there a bright side? Is there anything good in the ruling?
Yes, there is, and this is where you come in. Even though the Supremes approved these government confiscations of private property, the five justices who voted with the majority did say that they didn't like it.
They encouraged local jurisdictions to pass laws severely restricting these seizures. -- "

---

Even Neal doesn't quite 'get' the courts point. The USSC's main point is that majority decision rules.
- That it rules despite what the 5th Amendment clearly says. -- And they insist that the only way their own majority decision can be overruled is by forming other majorities to dictate yet more new laws. [laws that could then be reversed, ad infinitum]

We don't need more new laws enacted by 'democratic majorities'. We need our supreme law, the Constitution, restored & protected by our Republican form of government.