COMMENTS:
Are you joking, everygirl?
by mojo on Thu Jun 23, 05 12:54pm
[+]
It's obvious who the Supreme Court Justices are in bed with.
That's it. I'm buying guns.
no mojo it is a decision they handed down today , in America, as least I think that's were we are?
Do you believe that?
Was this an extension of Imminent Domain?
This is terrible, absolutely terrible. This makes the owning of real estate the privilege of the rich and powerful. Anything else can be confiscated, at will, by the government for the most bogus of reasons.
The US is becoming a legal jungle: survival of the fittest; the big fish eats the little fish.
Very sad.
Limited Imminent Domain for things like utility cable access or roads is one thing; to make way for private economic concerns ... that is something else.
This is just a natural extension of imminent domain. Not only can the government steal your land for it's own use, but it can steal it to give to the corporations they're in bed with.
This has got to be one of the scariest and worst decisions I have ever heard and we as Americans should fight against it. It seems that democrats and republicans on this page are agreed on this issue. What do we have to do to fight this?
I've seen several web sites that list the senators & congressmen in each state & their phone & fax #'s we need to all contact our states reps. & see if they can't put some legislation up to block anyone from taking advantage of this.
I still can't believe anyone raised in America could make a decision like that.
I wonder what the odds are that they are taking money under the table from someone? I can't see any other reason for this. Let's hope the backlash gives them whiplash!
Should be illegal in all practical cases.
What a twisted view of the 5th Ammendment. I am furious with this abuse of the law and I will search out these websites to let my feelings known to my representatives on this issue, as we all should.
This is one of the worst things to happen in the Supreme Court in at least thirty years.
To think that the government can use eminent domain to seize someone's house because THEY think they can put it to better use is an absolute freak show..
This is political pornography.
I haven't read the decision but if Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, or O'connor are in the five then that will be tragic for the values of the constructionist, property rights, anti-activists in this country.
Of course Walmart can generate more money than I can from the land that my house sits on. Of course the city can put some areas to better use.
Tyranny of the minority anyone?
Or call it tranny of the majority if you like.
Either way this decision sucks and the Congress will have to pass a law telling the Court how to read the constitution again,.
I'm searching too, but if anyone finds a website with appropriate information on where to fight against this, please post it.
US House of Representatives.gov
US Senate . gov.
White House . gov
the Supreme Coourt . gov
Thank you 1000 times :-D
This decision comes out of a case in Connecticut.
This is not an extension of eminent domain.
This, is like cranky said, a big damned ripoff.
Cahtexis, say you own a house and the governement wants to clear it (and others away) to put in ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT projects like a hotel, or a shopping mall.
They can take your land and give it to private developers. (you are compensated "fair market value").
The city government can do this.
And they don't even have to put the project to a vote of the people.
I can't imagine how the Supreme court could have come to this decision.
Frightening.
We have something like this in the UK, its called a "compulsory purchase order" you dont have a leg to stand on if the local council want your house/land.
Honestly? I had too many freedoms anyway. I wish the government would come in and sieze everything I own and just force me to work in a government owned factory. We tried this whole 'freedom' thing for long enough now, maybe it's time we give communism a chance.
Where's steel? He should be on here praising this progressive step away from private ownership of property.
inter-reg actually the people you named were against the ruling.
Maybe those militia guys up in the hills of Idaho are onto something...
It's interesting how this topic has brought everyone on board on one sideline so to speak. I think we are all against this, the only silver lining, and it's not much, is that in order to have property taken, they have to first hold a series of hearings, but just what does that mean? Who knows... it's pretty sad though.
I would like to hope in this particular situation, that Congress would recognize the importance of legislation to protect americans from this sort of crap and enact a law protecting the sanctity of one's property against a company taking it merely because they want it. Too bad it will take years for that to happen, if ever *cough*lobbyists*cough*
Note which 5 Supreme Court Justices made this decision. An eerie reminder of an election that turned into a selection.
It was the 4 liberal judges and 1 "moderate" I wondered why people say that some liberals are basically socialists, I guess this kind of thing is what they were talking about. It is good to see that the left out here is against it too.
^Exactly. That doesn't make it better though. Unfortunately the courts (both activists and constructionists) think that they are the arbitors of every single aspect of life.
I hope that the Congress will do something to stop these kinds of abuses.
If anyone wants to see the kinds of abuses that "redevelopment agencies" do just look up:
San Jose, California Redevelopment Agency Abuses. They are the most active and aggravating of all. They rate number 1 in the state for excessive use of eminent domain.
everygirl I named those four judges by way of meaning that I hoped that they hadn't gone over to the darkside on this issue.
This move is entirely UNCONSTITUTIONAL! This is also very fascist.
|
