Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Liberal Supreme Court of United States stabs little guy in the back!

This week, in a 5-4 decision, the supreme dunderheads decided that if ya got the money, ya get to tell the little guy where he can and cant live.

Thats right, folks. According to the supreme court, iminent domain can apply to any use of private land, not just public use.

So, if you are lucky enough to live on a nice beach, but you are poor, too bad. Here comes a nice rich liberal to take you land, under pay you for it and call it a "fair amount", and slap yet another hideous dayglow peach hotel up.

Or, if some rich guy can promise to pay just a few dollars more in taxes, your house can become a strip mall.

Dontcha just love that liberal supreme court?

I personally think some rich republican should go to each township, community, etc... where the idiot justices live and tell them that he/she wants the land the justices live on for a strip parlor/red light business, and kick them outta their homes.

Logically, the supreme court just pissed on the rights of each and every individual in america. If even one dollar more in taxes could be collected, it would increase the "tax base", their justification for their ruling.

Support your local supreme court justice, tear down your house.

I fail to see how this is "liberal", in the US sense of the word.

Because conservatives new better than to gut one of the founding principles of america. Property rights entail just about everything that comes into play in the law, both civil and criminal.

They, the liberal five, completely ignored the wording of PUBLIC usage, meaning for the good of the community, such as roads, bridges, government edifices, and instead turned it around to mean that anyone with enough money can force anyone off their land at any time, especially if they have a dirty town council or judge in their pockets. The residents of New London paid their taxes, obeyed the laws, and what they got for it was to be forced off land that they legally owned for a resort, which most definately will not be PUBLIC usage.

If you still fail too see, i hope you don't have a home somewhere that some rich guy covets.

I'm a little surprised it took you this long. Wasn't this decision handed down last week?

As for the facts behind your post, I feel like you are absolutely right. This decision completely mystifies me. I feel like the Supreme Court really let us down on this one... legal precedents which weaken private ownership of land (an American tradition dating back to the Homestead Act) are frankly offensive to me. So I really hate this one. It reminds me of the little old lady in Herbie Rides Again who was going to lose her home to the evil hotel developer...

So I agree. This one stinks. And yes, I know which justices voted for and against this one, and I'll tell you, it raised an eyebrow or two on my face. So while I'm generally with the more liberal justices, I'm completely and emphatically against them on this one.

And as for the inflammatory tone of your post... not only is it unnecessary, it's growing extremely tired, predictable, and cliched. But mainly tired. This really isn't fun anymore.

sorry you feel that way. It's kinda the way i feel about some of the conservative bashing that takes place here.

I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with you about the insanity of this decision, Rickshaw. I wouldn't call it a "liberal" decision, though. I don't know where it falls - fascist maybe? Anyway, it's awful. By the way, sometimes it's best not to use labels - not only does the lack of labels strengthen your agrgument, but it also avoids the possibility of offending some of us. Remember, we are friends here.

Party next year at the Lost Liberty Hotel, 34 Cilley Hill Road, Weare, New Hampshire!
That's the place that used to be Supreme Court Judge Souter's place until it was deemed "the City of Weare would certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land."
(google the name of the hotel and the address for lots more details)

We get some companies to reposess a few judges houses for the 'greater good' and I'd say this problem will go away fairly quickly.

You are right semi.

On these boards i have seen people bash:

conservatives
christians
"born again" christians
religious "fundamentalists"
Pro-lifers
southerners
people that live in mobile homes
anyone in "flyover" country
several peoples from mississippi and alabama
males
white males


As for it not being liberal, well, it broke down along liberal/conservative lines. Liberals voted in favor of gutting property rights, conservatives voted to protect them.

Now, i will admit, my first post was a bit brash. Often, the first post on these types of threads are. I didn't use that tone afterwards, and i won't again. But there have been many many many posts deriding, mocking, etc...just some of the people on my list above, and yet the hue and cry goes up when i turn it around. Something else else to think about, no?

Oh, and Kid Prime, the reason it took so long for me to post this was because i was waiting to see which one of us from the liberal side would come here and call the Supreme Court on their incredibly evil decision.

No one did.

We have discussed it, although not in great detail, here . Along with some of the other bonehead decisions recently made by the 'high' Court.

And Sandra Day O'Connor just announced she has resigned.

Now the real frenzy starts as each side spends Millions, with an "M" on promoting their own people and choices.

If you thought that the presidential election was nuts, this is gonna make it seem like a newborn kitten comparitively.

Scott, i missed that one, i will freely admit. When i went there, i didn't even see the topic it was under.

My apologies on that score.

No need to apologize Rick. Just letting you know that we had had some discussion.

And that's the first I've heard about SDO. CNN must be behind in getting out breaking news.

I just heard it on abc radio.

I've heard that already a front runner to replace Sandra Day O'Connor is U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.

The real fight will be when Renquist steps down - especially if Bush nominates Scalia to succeed him as Chief Justice. The best chance for a smooth transition, in my opinion, would be to nominate Anthony Kennedy - a good compromise justice that almost everyone could live with.

i'm not surprised by this ruling. it already happens all the time, the city is usually a middle man though, selling exceptions to laws, codes, and zoning regularly... to a developer that can add income or alledged gentrification to a city (corporate or just a developer with money.)

but, i don't think we ever know what goes on in politics. what the under story is, or are aware of which red herrings we are given. i believe most decissions on any level of government have an impetus of financial gain (republican or democrat)

and i want to say for the record, there are very few politicians i would consider liberal or progressive and fewer on the supreme court.

I've been busy. (8 hours a day working full-time and then 4-6 hours of school in the evening, not to mention homework and studying. Heck, I barely even see Lee these days.)

Please stop trying to pick a fight.

I'm surprised this week's decision was the one that finally woke people up to this situation.

If you'd care to check, the Supremes--both "liberal" AND "conservative"--have been handing down rulings like this for about two decades now. Eminent domain has been expanded to benefit corporations LONG before now, but we haven't noticed it.

'Bout time some folks finally woke up.

Kid, you apparantly missed my responses to Scott. I already admitted i didn't see the thread that was dealing with it.

So, please stop your passive aggressiveness and i wont be talking about this to you anymore.

Fair enough?

Calybos, i deal with it all the time, just not in so blatant a manner.

I buy timber, much of which is hardwood swamps. The Forestry commission has guys that check up and watch everything we do...ON PRIVATE PROPERTY!

Between them and DHEC, they manage to "take" about a quarter to a third of some people's land (without reimbursement of any kind) for moving water, or "permanent streams". Don't get me started on intermittent streams or watersheds.

But, we understand this, and it is for PUBLIC good, health of streams, etc... It is when they start using arbitrary means to 'take' that get the blood boiling.