Couloir Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 I would argue that this is far less of an issue of liberal vs. conservative and more of an issue of a special (in this case a very special) interest getting their way. WE should ALL be outraged! Quote
Fairweather Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 Liberal justices; Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter all sided with government's right to sieze private homes to generate more tax $$$. Conservative justices; Scalia, Thomas, Renquist, O'Connor all sided with the citizen's right to keep their homes. It doesn't get any clearer to me. Liberals = big, intrusive government and fewer personal rights. 'Progressive' means a new WalMart or high-rise condo where my home used to be. Quote
Chaps Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 WELL THAT IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE A FUCKED UP BACKWARDS VIEW OF THE WORLD FAIRWEATHER. BUT IT IS YOUR RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN TO HAVE THAT, SO ALL IS GOOD PATRIOT! Quote
Chaps Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 BECAUSE NO ONE CAN HEAR OVER YOUR STUPID FUCKING RHETORIC, ASSEYES!! Quote
Fairweather Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 ....because you have no compelling retort to my post and it's easier to just throw a tantrum? Because you know I'm right. (again) Quote
Fairweather Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 Liberal justices; Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter all sided with government's right to sieze private homes to generate more tax $$$. Conservative justices; Scalia, Thomas, Renquist, O'Connor all sided with the citizen's right to keep their homes. It doesn't get any clearer to me. Liberals = big, intrusive government and fewer personal rights. 'Progressive' means a new WalMart or high-rise condo where my home used to be. Quote
cj001f Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 Liberal justices; Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter all sided with government's right to sieze private homes to generate more tax $$$. Conservative justices; Scalia, Thomas, Renquist, O'Connor all sided with the citizen's right to keep their homes. It doesn't get any clearer to me. Liberals = big, intrusive government and fewer personal rights. 'Progressive' means a new WalMart or high-rise condo where my home used to be. So what'd you think when Texas condemned private land to build the baseball park for the Rangers that dear W was in charge of? Yeah, this sucks. WTF else is new. The Rehnquist court specializes in giving people the shaft. When it isn't passing the buck. Quote
Fairweather Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 "The Rehnquist court"?? Nice try, cj. But the idealogical divisions were clear here, and each justice had exactly one vote. True colors revealed. This entire thread clearly demonstrates the obfuscation, excuses, and dodges so common on your side of the political fence. Why not just say it? "My liberal justices got it wrong. This is an outrage brought on by judicial activist liberals who promote a 'living, breathing' constitution." C'mon, cj! I'll show you! ... "My Republican friends are wrong about flag burning! It is a constitutionally protected right." See? It's easy! Quote
Chaps Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 YOU GREASY LITTLE LIBERAL FLAG BURNER!!! I KNEW IT!! THE PATRIOT ACT WILL HAVE YOUR ASS IN GITMO IN NO TIME! WE'LL BE CHECKING YOUR LIBRARY CARDS. Quote
Fairweather Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 Check my library card! Read my comments here on this board! I don't care. ...but if you are here to take away my home....I'm going to defend it violently. Quote
Chaps Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 THEY'LL HAVE BIGGER GUNS THAN YOU DO, CHIEF. THEY'RE COMING FOR YOU. SURRENDER TO THE COLLECTIVE, AND IT WILL BE PAINLESS FOR YOU. Quote
Peter_Puget Posted June 24, 2005 Author Posted June 24, 2005 Read This... and then decide who the corporate tools are. Quote
cj001f Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 "The Rehnquist court"?? Nice try, cj. But the idealogical divisions were clear here, and each justice had exactly one vote. True colors revealed. This entire thread clearly demonstrates the obfuscation, excuses, and dodges so common on your side of the political fence. Why not just say it? "My liberal justices got it wrong. This is an outrage brought on by judicial activist liberals who promote a 'living, breathing' constitution." eh, did I ever say the liberal jurors didn't fuck up? They did. Strict constitutionalism is an even bigger pile of shit. Divining meaning from 200 year old texts. What's next, divining meaning from 2000 year old texts? Oh, thats right, the nut cases think you can do that, too. To atone for my previous sin I gave the Reagan library the finger as I drove past, not once, but twice today. Quote
Chaps Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 Read this link. Drop everything you're doing and join the movement. Chat boards are the way to change the world. Fuck, Peter Puget, what are you thinking? That people would actually read anything you post? And that it would then have an impact on them? Lay off the crack buddy. You are such a tool Quote
rbw1966 Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 It doesn't get any clearer to me. Liberals = big, intrusive government and fewer personal rights. 'Progressive' means a new WalMart or high-rise condo where my home used to be. Ahhh yes, it was liberals who created the single largest bureaucracy in america: Homeland Security. It was liberals who challenged individual states rights. Agreed the liberal justices got it wrong and this decision is flat out wrong. To say that liberals are responsible for big government in modern america is laughable. Quote
Peter_Puget Posted June 24, 2005 Author Posted June 24, 2005 Don't forget that the "liberal" justices on the court have sided with the drug warriors against cancer patients. Quote
cj001f Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 Don't forget that the "liberal" justices on the court have sided with the drug warriors against cancer patients. Since when is Scalia a "liberal"? Quote
Macson Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 This reminds me of a case in Bremerton where the city told a 75 year old widow they needed her property to expand a sewer plant. She didn't want to sell, but they threatened to condemn it so she agreed to sell it for $135k. Within the span of 2 years, instead of expanding the sewer plant, the city rezoned and cleared the land, then sold it to Par Ford to build their new dealership. Selling price? $2,000,000. I frankly don't know how the people on the city council there can sleep at night. Related article http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:--T7X...lient=firefox-a Quote
prole Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 Another great example of how 'liberal' vs. conservative dichcotomy obscures more than it clarifies. How exactly does does the siezure of individual property for infrastructural developments that benefit private capital and further capitalist growth represent progressive or "liberal" decision-making? Apart from the usual lame "big guvermint" reactionary gibberish, nothing. In fact,the foundation of neocon politics is wielding state power to enact policies that benefit capital, see Social Security crisis. This is in partial distinction to neoliberals messianic faith in markets. Others on this post have provided numerous examples that show that conservative judges don't give a shit about the little guy. The real fear on the part of "conservative" judges is that such rulings might undermine the foundations of class power: private property. Of course, they really don't have anything to fear since the "liberals" are acting on behalf of of capital's need for state intervention to develop infrastucture. Quote
Stefan Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 did anyone see the words, "to acquire the remainder of the property from unwilling owners in exchange for JUST COMPENSATION." Does "just compensation" in this case mean "higher than market value" for this incident becuase it is for private purposes? Usually in emminent domain for public projects the property owner receives market value. I would be curious to know if in this case "just compensation" exceeds market value due to privatization. Quote
Jim Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 It's always a formula on market value - though if you can show a difference via your own apprasial you have room for negoiation. Souter's record is a solid moderate conservative, Renquist is more right, Scalia is just plain wacko, and Thomas is his lap dog. I was surprised that E.D. was upheld for this case as there have been some shaky processes recently concerning "redevelopment". I think it would have been a very big deal to tweak E.D. and the ruling majority just thought it wasn't worth it. Quote
foraker Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 hey now, don't go bringing facts and reason in to an ideological sprayfest... Quote
Norman_Clyde Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 Fairweather and PP, I agree with you. This realization gives me new hope for the future of America. Perhaps the five justices, in their wisdom, are simply acting to unify our country, by making a ruling that liberals and conservatives will both love to hate. I'm curious to hear from both camps: do you, or any of your friends, support the court's decision? Every single person I've talked to so far has been disgusted. It will be interesting to see the liberals and conservatives engage in this argument: conservatives will see government as the enemy in land seizures for the sake of private development, while liberals will not blame government directly, rather they will see government as shill to the real evil-- big greedy corporations. Who's right? IMO, both are. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.