Skip to comments.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
National Morality. Com ^
| 06-24-05
| Wayne D. Leeper
Posted on 06/24/2005 7:17:30 AM PDT by tenn2005
Today, June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court totally defied history, abdicated their duty to insure justice, ignored our Constitution and trashed the rights of We the People by depriving us of our right to private ownership of property.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalmorality.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: eminentdomain; kelo; privateproperty; publicgood; tyranny; tyrrany
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-63 next last
To: tenn2005
21
posted on
06/24/2005 7:41:04 AM PDT
by
Ladysmith
((NRA) Wisconsin Hunter Shootings: If you want on/off the WI Hunters ping list, please let me know.)
To: Protagoras
Sorry, too busy trying to get a flag burning amendment. After this last assault on my rights, I might burn mine while I still have a chance. Ouch. The truth hurts.
22
posted on
06/24/2005 7:43:34 AM PDT
by
Huck
(Don't follow leaders)
To: tenn2005
Well thats 5 down. 5 to go. As soon as we get that flag burning amendment through, it will be 6.
So I wonder how happy the liberals are with their "liberal" injustices?
23
posted on
06/24/2005 7:44:14 AM PDT
by
edeal
To: Yo-Yo
"Liberal Justices voting for big business and big government, and conservative Justices voting for the little guy. Go figure. /sarcasm"
What surprised me is that 3 of the 5 a$$hole judges were appointed by (R) Presidents.
I mean, if a (R)-appointed Justice makes this kind of ruling, what recourse is left (since Electing Republicans to Executive office for SC nominees ain't workin')?
24
posted on
06/24/2005 7:48:02 AM PDT
by
Blzbba
(Let them hate us as long as they fear us - Caligula)
To: AMiller
"Maybe what needs to happen is some high profile government confiscation of private property in support of the decision. The Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port might be a good start or the homes of the justices that voted for this ruling."
I think your on to something. That Kennedy property good be better put to use as a hotel for tourists with a shopping mall and some casinos. Look at all the revenue that will bring in and it will stop the Kennedy family from fighting over the property amongst themselves.
25
posted on
06/24/2005 7:52:36 AM PDT
by
Americanexpat
(A strong democracy through citizen oversight.)
To: Blzbba
Those three may have been appointed by (R) Presidents, but they sure as heck ain't conservative.
26
posted on
06/24/2005 7:56:41 AM PDT
by
gieriscm
Comment #27 Removed by Moderator
To: EagleUSA
Only one of consequence I know of --- Tom McClintok here in California stood up and called it exactly what it is LET's ALL RALLY around Tom McClintock and support him in this effort. WRITE / CALL/ EMAIL HIM and let him know you appreciate him standing up for what is right!!!!!!! GO TOM GO!!!!!!!
28
posted on
06/24/2005 7:59:03 AM PDT
by
pollywog
(Psalm 121;1 I Lift my eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help.)
To: tenn2005
Those 5 Justices need to be impeached at the very least.
To: nmh
Those bastards who ruled this are impeachable...<br?
Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices ""during good Behaviour,"" and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
30
posted on
06/24/2005 7:59:29 AM PDT
by
aspiring.hillbilly
(The Confederate States of America rises again...!)
To: Protagoras
Sorry, too busy trying to get a flag burning amendment. After this last assault on my rights, I might burn mine while I still have a chance. Bump your comments!!!!
To: EagleUSA
someone from CA actually sets a good precedent for a change...
To: Huck
But they'll sucker us into voting for them. Faced with the spectre of Shrillary, we'll all vote for the GOP like suckers. What else can we do? Work hard in the primaries, deal with the disappointing mediocrity of the nominee, and hold your nose on election day.<<<
We the People can gather ourselves together and THROW THEM OUT!! Tell them to Cease and Desist.
But, unfortuantely. This is a nation of apathetic Cowards.
33
posted on
06/24/2005 8:03:52 AM PDT
by
Iron Matron
(The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , By the Blood of our Forefathers a Sovereign Nation.)
To: LS
170 years of nibbling at the 10 amendments ends in final demoltion.
To: tenn2005
We're toast as a nation with this ruling. We just became no better than Communist China where the government can seize anything of your anytime it wants to.
The Constitution, as of this ruling, is not even decent toilet paper.
35
posted on
06/24/2005 8:09:39 AM PDT
by
PeterFinn
(The Holocaust was perfectly legal.)
To: Huck
I read on another thread the the GOP Administration wanted to file a friend of the court brief in support of the city of New London. So seems the GOP is in favor of taking away the right of the poor and middle class to own private property. No surprise here, the GOP has long been at war with it's the middle class base. Keep voting GOP for more (much more) of the same.
36
posted on
06/24/2005 8:10:24 AM PDT
by
jpsb
(I already know I am a terrible speller)
To: mware
"State senator from CA" trying to protect individual rights?
Yeah, that'll happen.
37
posted on
06/24/2005 8:11:27 AM PDT
by
PeterFinn
(The Holocaust was perfectly legal.)
To: Blzbba
What surprised me is that 3 of the 5 a$$hole judges were appointed by (R) Presidents. Ah, yes, but they had to be CONFIRMED by a DemocRATic Senate! These were the most conservative Justices that survived that process. Hence the squabble now by the MINORITY party regarding fillibuster "rights."
38
posted on
06/24/2005 8:12:11 AM PDT
by
Yo-Yo
To: nmh
The government can now confiscate your home and personal property for the economic good of others. This is SCARY.
Liberty and self-governance are not scary things in the hands of trustworthy people. The only time this ruling would become scary if when the majority of people become corrupted, and at that point eminent domain would be the least of your worries.
To: All
Just for the rich?? I don't think so...most of us work and struggle for years to finally buy a house. It is always the biggest and most important purchase for anyone so this decision by the Supreme Court is big. The bad part is it seems to have NO RECOURSE>. Every person owning property is not rich and cities like most we live in are land sprawl all over the place. We move way out and all of the sudden, the city is all around us. Living on water, ocean, river or close in, means it could happen, and that seems very unconstitutional to me. Scenic mountain areas can be included.
40
posted on
06/24/2005 8:19:59 AM PDT
by
cousair
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-63 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson