Good news for Dems: GOP is falling apart

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by dia look

a Supreme Court lead by "conservative" justices said that cities could use eminent domain to confiscate private property and give it to private companies to develope for private enterprise to make a prfit, all in the name of "urban blight" Private property went out the window with Justice Scalia and the rest.

...has always been provisions for the public interest. That is a process. Taking a piece of land for a highway or to build a stadium or open up development or some other purpose is not the same as taking profits. There is compensation involved with eminent domain takings. That's a rather large difference than taking money from a company. Where is the compensation in that? Where is the public interest served in confiscating property simply for the sake of some perceived notion that they 'made too much' profit?

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by dia look

a Supreme Court lead by "conservative" justices said that cities could use eminent domain to confiscate private property and give it to private companies to develope for private enterprise to make a prfit, all in the name of "urban blight" Private property went out the window with Justice Scalia and the rest.

The breakdown of that vote a few years back went like this:

Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer - In favor of eminent domain confiscation.

Opposed to it were O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. They wrote that the majority had tilted in favor of those with "disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." And in a separate dissent, Thomas sounded a rare note of agreement with liberal groups such as the NAACP, which had sided with the property owners in the case. He protested that urban renewal has historically resulted in displacement of minorities, the elderly and the poor.

It was all the liberal justices and a moderate who voted for the confiscation of land. It was all the conservative justices who were against it. You're just not going to get conservatives to believe it's ever right for the government to just take your stuff for the common good.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...has always been provisions for the public interest. That is a process. Taking a piece of land for a highway or to build a stadium or open up development or some other purpose is not the same as taking profits. There is compensation involved with eminent domain takings. That's a rather large difference than taking money from a company. Where is the compensation in that? Where is the public interest served in confiscating property simply for the sake of some perceived notion that they 'made too much' profit?

Well there is, and there isn't. Confiscating property so that developers could build higher priced homes is pretty much out and out theft, but since the tax base was expanded, the city was pretty much for it.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Well there is, and there isn't. Confiscating property so that developers could build higher priced homes is pretty much out and out theft, but since the tax base was expanded, the city was pretty much for it.

...have that debate and I think we'd tend to agree on, what was it, Connecticut or somewhere this happened recently and a decent and certainly not run down neighborhood got taken away.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...have that debate and I think we'd tend to agree on, what was it, Connecticut or somewhere this happened recently and a decent and certainly not run down neighborhood got taken away.

The Fifth Amendment allows for confiscation - with due compensation - of property for PUBLIC use. Thus, highways, canals, bridges and so forth.

Not high-price waterfront condos, marinas, shopping centers etc.

The Dems were for it because it brought in more taxes. The Repubs were against it for the same reason they oppose a lot of stuff - it's government confiscation of private property. In an ironic twist of events, the Republicans were standing for the little guy while the Democrats were squarely in the court of profit and corporate greed.

And the greatest irony is of course, that the previous poster placed the blame on the people actually DEFENDING the cause of the poor....

[Pete (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

The breakdown of that vote a few years back went like this:

Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer - In favor of eminent domain confiscation.

Opposed to it were O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. They wrote that the majority had tilted in favor of those with "disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." And in a separate dissent, Thomas sounded a rare note of agreement with liberal groups such as the NAACP, which had sided with the property owners in the case. He protested that urban renewal has historically resulted in displacement of minorities, the elderly and the poor.

It was all the liberal justices and a moderate who voted for the confiscation of land. It was all the conservative justices who were against it. You're just not going to get conservatives to believe it's ever right for the government to just take your stuff for the common good.

A perfect example of a Republic at work. Right after that decision numerous states were outraged and they amended their state constitutions to prevent this from happening in their states. The result was that despite the SCOTUS decision it has become harder in most states to capture property by imminent domain.

[AndyMarquisLIVE (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...discuss Sen. Obama's proposal to confiscate money from oil companies?

I'd rather talk about McCain's pastor. I mean, for the last month (if not longer), you guys have about Rev. Wright. I was thinking you'd want to have a similar discussion about McCain's pastor (from whom he sought an endorsement).

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

Voting record is very important, no doubt. But it's not an acurate metric for what work someone has done in the Senates. Anybody can vote for someone else's bill, but someone else did all the work to make it happen.

Exactly. I showed he's done NOTHING in the Senate. But, you claimed his record didn't show he was incredibly liberal and divisive. I'm waiting for a single vote or co-sponsorship that can be compared to the 80% of the time he bothered to vote, and show he's not divisive or horribly liberal.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by AndyMarquisLIVE

I thought Mr. Obama was running for President, not Michelle Obama and Jeremiah Wright.

And, how do we know what Barry thinks, and how he would govern? We have to look at his long-term associates, people he claims as close to him; and, how he has led and how he has voted when given the chance to vote.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

The breakdown of that vote a few years back went like this:

Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer - In favor of eminent domain confiscation.

Opposed to it were O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. They wrote that the majority had tilted in favor of those with "disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." And in a separate dissent, Thomas sounded a rare note of agreement with liberal groups such as the NAACP, which had sided with the property owners in the case. He protested that urban renewal has historically resulted in displacement of minorities, the elderly and the poor.

It was all the liberal justices and a moderate who voted for the confiscation of land. It was all the conservative justices who were against it. You're just not going to get conservatives to believe it's ever right for the government to just take your stuff for the common good.

There you go, being misled by "facts", "honesty", etc