Skip to comments.
Supreme Court upholds government land grabs for developers (Something is freezing over)
WSWS ^
| 6/27/05
| John Andrews and Barry Grey
Posted on 06/27/2005 11:34:55 AM PDT by Borges
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
To: alessandrofiaschi
GHWB gave us one horrible Justice and one Great one...
21
posted on
06/27/2005 11:56:52 AM PDT
by
RockinRight
(Conservatism is common sense, liberalism is just senseless.)
To: joesnuffy
22
posted on
06/27/2005 12:06:00 PM PDT
by
Frank_Discussion
(May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
To: mizmoutarde
I know what you mean . . .
23
posted on
06/27/2005 12:13:50 PM PDT
by
cvq3842
To: mizmoutarde
There is nothing democratic about either this decision or the process. These 9 ideologues were not elected and the citizenry has no recourse to them (aside from mugging if they can get past security). Which is precisely why the decision IS democratic. They left it up to the democratic process. Prohibiting our democratic bodies from taking these actions would have been UN-democratic.
This just demonstrates why democracy is not a goal in itself. The goal is protecting our rights. Democracies can violate those rights just as effectively as other forms of government.
24
posted on
06/27/2005 12:23:09 PM PDT
by
mlo
To: RockinRight
25
posted on
06/27/2005 12:23:33 PM PDT
by
handy old one
(It is unbecoming for young men to utter maxims. Aristotle)
To: cvq3842
These "progressives" amuse me to no end. The wacko crowd is oblivious to the fact that Big Government is Big Business best friend.
26
posted on
06/27/2005 12:26:57 PM PDT
by
rollo tomasi
(Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
To: Borges
They issued the ruling. Now lets see if they can live with it.
If I were those five be-robed liberals, I wouldn't be counting on any sort of favorable legacy. These fools may well be remembered as placing the final straw on the pile of straws representing a long line of federal court transgressions against the constitutional rights of American citizens.
As an institution, the SCOTUS will now be considered just as bad as the Legislative branch, and one no longer posessing the moral authority to continue.
27
posted on
06/27/2005 12:38:48 PM PDT
by
Czar
(StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
Comment #28 Removed by Moderator
To: cvq3842
This would be the PERFECT launching pad for a third party. A populous party.
You have liberals and conservatives outraged.
Bring the wing tips together!
29
posted on
06/27/2005 12:56:21 PM PDT
by
TomasUSMC
(FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
Comment #30 Removed by Moderator
To: TomasUSMC
We aren't close enough to a Presdiential election year to allow this ruling to have the impact it may have had. This looks like the sort of thing an H. Ross Perot type could have capitalized on. Come to think of it today is HRP's 75th birthday.
31
posted on
06/27/2005 1:02:40 PM PDT
by
Borges
To: freedommmm
32
posted on
06/27/2005 1:39:58 PM PDT
by
Calpernia
(Breederville.com)
To: Borges
"While the practice of condemning small private parcels for larger private developments has been ongoing for decades, last weeks decision is the first by the Supreme Court to hold expressly that promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government which justifies using eminent domain to seize land for private developers as a public use." Hello, Supreme Court! Knock! Knock! Hey, is anybody home? Tell us why this has been going on for decades? I thought we folks established goobernment to prosescute property theft. Oh, I get it. Don't hear any cases on this for 20-30 years and then justify your decision claiming it's an 'ancient custom.'
Well guess what? It's an ancient custom to change governments when the people wake up find themselves living under tyranny.
33
posted on
06/27/2005 8:07:13 PM PDT
by
Eastbound
(Jacked out since 3/31/05)
To: Borges
Did the Supremes make the land grabbers bullet proof?
34
posted on
06/27/2005 8:08:59 PM PDT
by
G Larry
(Honor the fallen and the heroes of 9/11 at the Memorial Site.)
To: Borges
Despite the lineup of dissentersright-wingers William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, along with swing justice Sandra Day OConnor, the decision is deeply anti-democratic.
35
posted on
06/28/2005 12:48:50 AM PDT
by
frankiep
To: Meldrim
President Reagan made a huge error in not fighting harder for Robert Bork. I am not so sure that Mr. Bork would have voted for the property owners. As far as I know, he has yet to take a public stance on Kelo, and I would be unsurprised if he voted against the property owners and for the city of New London.
To: mlo
The court might have ruled that these takings were prohibited, which may have been the right decision, but it wouldn't have been a democratic one. Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. That's why we used to have a Constitution to protect the sheep. That was before it was used as toilet paper.
To: Borges
Someome should look into a petition or referendum on the city, county, state or federal level to condem the homes of New London's mayor and counsel homes to put up parks in their honor.
To: sockmonkey
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 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