Posted on 07/01/2005 3:57:10 AM PDT by SkyPilot
Talk about crystal clarity! Tom has hit the judge-nomination ball right in the "sweet spot."
The Libs on the High Court are her kind of people. Fascists.
And every silver lining has a cloud. The President has not come out with a strong statement of opposition to the Court's decision. Silence, too, is a statement.
Nor is George W. Bush.
Well, the Bush administration wasn't. They didn't do squat to help Kelo.
Well now...isn't THAT special!
So if we ...BYRD( code word good enough?)...a few Judges, and replace them with ones that actually have READING COMPREHENSION, and a REAL UNDERSTANDING of Constitutional Law....and we overturn the ENTIRE ACTIVIST HISTORY...will Ms. AmeriKKKa Pelosi think THOSE rulings are from God too?
I have HAD WAY too much of Judges that can "reinterperet" law ANY WAY they want!
If the law is that "Living and mutable", then I can do it too...see, I want the ability to obey and determine the laws the way I want too!
Judge. Rope. Tree.
(some assembly required)
I hasten to add "SENATORS/REPRESENTATIVES/Judge. Rope. Tree." to that pithy statement!
Well, the dems have turned the courts into their temples. They view their ability to regain power not through their message, or lack thereof, and support of the people, but through the over-reaching power of the courts.
Maybe I'm naive, but there's something I can't understand. With the democrats losing the election, losing control over the legislature, and with their overall limp responses to international terrorism, why would they not appear outspoken about an issue that many common libs find just as appaling? How much more do they want to distance themselves from public opinion? Where is the outcry for the little guy? How stupid can they be ?
To start with, we shouldn't HAVE to amend the Constitution. The 5th Amendment is supposed to protect our land from being siezed by the government.
I'm not sure that it would do any good to propose an amendment that can be ignored just as easily as the 5th amendment can be.
But then again, that seems to be our only recourse right now. A Constitutional Amendment.
Pelosi thinks that the SCOTUS creates law and Congress interpretes/enforces it.....too funny.
It makes me SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO mad reading that ;(
And it's even worse. What happens when a town raises taxes on the mere threat that they'll have to emminent domain properties in order to boost their tax revenues??? There's going to be no more bond issues defeated! EMINENT DOMAIN a new tax base so who cares about mere voters! The possibilities are endless. This could get TRULY ugly!
I thought it was especially telling that emminent domain picked up steam in one of those towns when the pol's were reelected by the people who wanted to STEAL the land donated thousands of dollars to their campaigns. There's a lot of thread on those tires as well!
I can't BELIEVE that the Supremes would rule like this!!
There is broad and deep bipartisan opposition to Kelo.
This could affect the appointment of a new member of the Supreme Court.
But Congress is withholding cash from those municipalities who violate the Fifth Amendment's public use clause.
Suddenly, everyone understands now that money is involved.
Well, this is being PROPOSED. But frankly I'm skeptical.
If a community gets 5-10 million from the feds, but can get 20-25 mil from a new hotel/condo who cares what the feds think.
yeah, unlike a lot on this thread, I think the left is just as much up in arms abuot this as we are, but for entirely different reasons.
For them it's about the evil corporations stealing poor peoples land. And I never thought I'd say it, but I gotta agree with them.
Govt is a mere go-between.
You make good arguments, but I think that communities tend to be run by people with bad math skills.
Example, raise tax rates, get more revenue. Except what really happens is that they get less. Less business, less to take, balanced by ever increasing spending by local governments.
In my town, the school board decided last year to overspend the budget by a million dollars. They figured that they could get away with it as the last election had a 9% turnout. So this election, we had 3 choices - increase taxes to pay 300K more than the overspending; 600K more than the overspending; or 900K more than the overspending.
All were voted down and the jerk that ignored the budget he had got kicked out of office. Needless to say, turnoout was at a record high (75%). He was replaced by an unknown.
David Souter - Almost Like God,
Good post. Thanks for your post. Bump.
As a result of outrage over Kelo vs. New London, Ct., it is great to see Americans so aware of, & energized in defense of, private property rights by addressing threats, this terrible precedent (Kelo v. New London), and becoming aware of the downside of activist Judges. I have been concerned with both of these related issues for about a decade. I even had brief, separate, conversational encounters with two of the "good" Justices (Scalia & Thomas) in the Kelo case about 6 or 7 years ago re: "The Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment designed to protect private property from arbitrary seizures, but providing for Eminent Domain for certain "public use" (NOT "public purpose") . It was clear they were anxious to see some good cases walk toward them. I doubt if they would have predicted the bizarre outcome in Kelo, though.
For those of us who are deeply concerned with protection of Private Property from improper application of Eminent Domain in contravention of the Original Intent of the Founders in the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, I am registering a warning or a concern:
I think AG (& potential USSC Nominee) Alberto Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))
and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.
As some have frequently observed, he certainly believes in a "Living Constitution" and is NOT a strict constructionist or an Originalist, but rather tends toward the Activist side, per National Review Online and others.
He has been sharply critical of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme Ct. decisions when they were both on that Ct. as Justices, and he has been quoted as being sharply criticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, including being quoted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.
This should be MAJOR headlines in all newspapers. HOUSE MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI D-CA, TODAY PROCLAIMED THE 9 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES GODS.
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.