Carrying eminant domain WAY too far

Pete

Pete

Repete
I saw that. :ohwell: The socialists are winning and it is so effing wrong. It is one thing if the local gov condemns a slum or a dangerous property, but now they can boot your ass out and take your property just because some developer wants to put a mall in so people don't have to drive too far to get a Hickory Farms beef stick and crotchless panties. :burning:
 
mAlice

mAlice

professional daydreamer
Pete said:
I saw that. :ohwell: The socialists are winning and it is so effing wrong. It is one thing if the local gov condemns a slum or a dangerous property, but now they can boot your ass out and take your property just because some developer wants to put a mall in so people don't have to drive too far to get a Hickory Farms beef stick and crotchless panties. :burning:
Click to expand...


In this case, waterfront property.
 
RoseRed

RoseRed

American Beauty
PREMO Member
Pete said:
I saw that. :ohwell: The socialists are winning and it is so effing wrong. It is one thing if the local gov condemns a slum or a dangerous property, but now they can boot your ass out and take your property just because some developer wants to put a mall in so people don't have to drive too far to get a Hickory Farms beef stick and crotchless panties. :burning:
Click to expand...

What do you think they are going to do witht the beef stick? :killingme
 
Pete

Pete

Repete
See Rraley, this is what you get with unbridled socialism and activist judges who thumb their nose at the constitution. Immenent domain my ass. If vital infrastructure is needed I can see due process with a HUGE burden on the state before anyones property is confiscated. Abandoned property that is a blight, slum, ghetto whatever, sure but to take, steal or grab someones rightful property because they can cop more tax revenue from Abercrombie & Fitch than they can from the rightful owner in property taxes is DEAD WRONG.

Bryer, Kennedy, Ginsberg and Souter all need their mansions claimed by emminent domain and paid low retail so they can put in a Super 8. Rat bastards.
 
Pete

Pete

Repete
Schizo said:
money=power (nomoney=nopower?)

Eminent domain is for the benefit of all... not greedy developers who are in bed with politicians.
Click to expand...
Funny, the conservative Justices went for the little guy, the liberals stuck it to them. Friend of the people my ass. :duh:
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
"We're pleased," attorney Edward O'Connell, who represents New London Development Corporation, said in response to the ruling.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'll bet he is. Wonder how "pleased" he'd be if it were his fat ass that was getting thrown out on the street?

Eminent domain is one of the more chilling things these fascists have ever come up with and O'Conner had it exactly right. YOU CAN'T EFFING DO THAT IN AMERICA!!!
 
Pete

Pete

Repete
Pretty soon the government will be able to exercise eminent domain because they don't like your business, you last name, the way you dress or any other number of bullshit reasons the jackasses can disguise as "for the betterment of all".

And this came from our Supreme Court, the guardians of the constitution and American principals. :duh: A bunch of elitist snobs who know better how your property is to be used. If this is not a flashing neon, gold plated, red flag waving clue how personal rights are being snatched away from ordinary people I don't know what is. The dems in congress wont even bat an eye at this yet they will whine like the end of the earth is near because the FBI might evesdrop on them calling 1-900-monica for phone sex.

UFB
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Schizo said:
Eminent domain is for the benefit of all... not greedy developers who are in bed with politicians.
Click to expand...
You have that exactly wrong. Eminent domain ONLY serves the greedy developers, not the homeowner or the business owner. Literally all you have to do to get a whole neighborhood destroyed is wave a few bucks in front of some County Commissioner's face and they will be happy to declare it a blighted area for you.

Read this and weep

“The term 'blight' is used to describe whether or not the structures generally in an area meet today's standards,” says Cain.

And it's the city that sets those standards, so Lakewood set a standard for blight that would include most of the homes in the neighborhood. A home could be considered blighted, says Jim Saleet, if it doesn't have the following: three bedrooms, two baths, an attached two-car garage and central air.
Click to expand...

So somebody got thier palm greased and below is the "blighted" house that Mr. Saleet is being forced out of:
 
Last edited:
S

Schizo

Guest
vraiblonde said:
You have that exactly wrong. Eminent domain ONLY serves the greedy developers, not the homeowner or the business owner. Literally all you have to do to get a whole neighborhood destroyed is wave a few bucks in front of some County Commissioner's face and they will be happy to declare it a blighted area for you.

Read this and weep



So somebody got thier palm greased and below is the "blighted" house that Mr. Saleet is being forced out of:
Click to expand...


If eminent domain is used as it should be, it is something that the government should be empowered to do. I completely agree with the quote from the first link.

"They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas."

This has been done many times and is needed, however, greedy developers and politicians have perverted the concept of eminent domain.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Vrai, I think your contention that eminent domain only serves the greedy developers is wrong. Eminent domain has been used to develop roads mostly, but it's also been used to develop military bases, for right-of-ways for utility lines, and other civic efforts. What's bothersome is that in the past, ED was used to sieze property needed for a defined civic need (highways, bases, etc.) that was needed to support the civil infrastructure, not it's being used for a shopping center and office complex that will not be for the use of all. Now that's wrong.
 
sleuth

sleuth

Livin' Like Thanksgivin'
I'm a bit confused.

I was talking with a friend about this. I had assumed this was the result of socialist/liberal activist judges, but my friend said there are only two Democrats on the Supreme Court. Three republicans appointed by Bush Sr., Reagan, and Ford voted FOR the bill. So you could say this is conservatives siding with big business instead of the people.

Anyone have a breakdown of who voted which way and where these judges lay on the political spectrum?
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Bruzilla said:
Vrai, I think your contention that eminent domain only serves the greedy developers is wrong. Eminent domain has been used to develop roads mostly, but it's also been used to develop military bases, for right-of-ways for utility lines, and other civic efforts.
Click to expand...
That's one thing - evicting people and tearing down their homes for shopping malls is something else entirely. Taking of land for the public good should be just that - FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, not for Wal-Marts.

I have never seen a town or city in my whole entire life that didn't have some unused land around that could be developed, and I doubt this particular town is any different. Eminent domain is fascist and wrong.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
sleuth said:
Anyone have a breakdown of who voted which way and where these judges lay on the political spectrum?
Click to expand...
Voted FOR:
Stevens (Ford) - liberal
Souter (Bush I) - swing
Ginsberg (Clinton) - liberal
Kennedy (Reagan) - swing
Breyer (Clinton) - liberal

Voted AGAINST:
O'Conner (Reagan) - swing
Rehnquist (Nixon) - conservative
Thomas (Bush I) - conservative
Scalia (Reagan) - conservative
 
sleuth

sleuth

Livin' Like Thanksgivin'
vraiblonde said:
Voted FOR:
Stevens (Ford) - liberal
Souter (Bush I) - swing
Ginsberg (Clinton) - liberal
Kennedy (Reagan) - swing
Breyer (Clinton) - liberal

Voted AGAINST:
O'Conner (Reagan) - swing
Rehnquist (Nixon) - conservative
Thomas (Bush I) - conservative
Scalia (Reagan) - conservative
Click to expand...
Vrai, why would Ford have appointed a liberal judge? And why did Bush I and Reagan appoint swing judges rather than conservatives?
 
R

rraley

New Member
vrai, Kennedy mostly votes with the conservatives of the bench while Souter mostly votes with the liberals...the only true "swing" is O'Connor.

Also recall that seven of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents...so if you have such a terrible problem with the Supreme Court, blame your own side, not "liberals."

As for this decision, it seems pretty outta whack for me, but you could look at it this way: the judiciary is staying out of a local, legislative question.
 
R

rraley

New Member
sleuth said:
Vrai, why would Ford have appointed a liberal judge? And why did Bush I and Reagan appoint swing judges rather than conservatives?
Click to expand...

Stevens was first thought of as a conservative, but he is pretty solidly liberal nowadays. The same can be said for Souter. As for Kennedy, he isn't really a swing (see above post), but there are sometimes that he votes with the more liberal bloc. Reagan appointed the swing O'Connor because he promised he would appoint a woman justice and they looked far and wide for potential women candidates and O'Connor was the most conservative one they could find (her family has long been active in the Arizona GOP).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top