Off Topic Messages

Supreme Court decision

Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:05 pm

Last week the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision that many, including myself, find to be an outrage. The case involved a city in my home state of Connecticut. Basically the city wanted to buy privately owned property under Eminent Domain, then sell the property to private developers. The concept of Eminent Domain does allow for a government entity to buy, at fair market value, private property for public use (road, school, hospital). But the Supreme Court's recent decision will now allow a government entity to buy private property under Eminent Domain, then turn around and sell it to a private developer! This constitutes a taking!

Interestingly, a California developer is using the decision to try and get a town in Vermont to buy a privately-owned property so that he can then buy it from the town and develope it for private use. The property is owned by Supreme Court Justice Davis Souter - who voted with the majority on the decision!

Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:14 pm

It's not right. Just take someone's house, kick them out, tear it down and build a bank there.

-- heard about the Rainwater Appropriation Bill ?

It's in discussion in Congress right now.

It would make it a crime for you to catch and contain rainwater on your own property.
You would have to pay a $500 permit (to the city? or state?) to be legally allowed to have a rainbarrel.

Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:38 pm

Pete I too heard about it and was outraged. FUBAR is what it is plain and simple. It used to be the fact that there had to be a reason like public transportation. Well the great thing about this country is if it gets a little worse another Supreme Court decision can overturn such acts. If the wrong house gets torn down watch out!

Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:24 pm

I was also outraged by this decision. I was especially angered that it was supported by the liberal end of the court. What it made me realize was that there are no friends of civil liberties on the court. The right side and the left side only disagree on which liberties they disrespect.

I really feel we take liberty for granted in this country and gleefully give away our rights at the drop of a hat. A few years ago, some wire service surveyed some high school kids and found that they believed the right to free speech should be limited, that privacy should be sacrificed if it meant more security etc. etc. There is a large disrespect in this country at this time for individual liberty and rights.

This can be judged by the relative public indifference to this decision. There were some newspaper editorials and of course the special interests groups voiced their opinions. But there was no public outcry. Perhaps if it was Michael Jackson's house, there may have been more of a stir.

If there is one great failing of the media today it is that the news media does not make it clear enough the way decisions in Washington affect the everyday lives of the average American. Even if you watch the political insider shows, the debate is more about winning and losing than the impact of the actions.

I can't let the public off completely though. They have to have more interest. If it is not affecting them directly at that moment they don't care. The thing is though is that decisions like this have the potential to have a major impact on the lives of the average citizen.

The constitution was written as a majority rules deal. But one of the specific functions of the Bill of Rights was to protect the minority from the majority. And in a case like this, this is where you need that type of protection. The advocates say that these type of private developments are beneficial to the community as a whole. Yet but how do you make that decision? By what criteria? Who says it's better to have a big casino in town than quality housing stock?

Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:04 am

likethebike wrote:If it is not affecting them directly at that moment they don't care.


That is clearly the problem. Let it get worse, perhaps that is when the air heads will finally understand.

Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:52 am

I'm ready to contribute to the new hotel on Souter's property. The jackass.

Fortunately, the wicked witch of the globalists is now resigning. I would have preferred impeachment and humiliation after her treasonous assertion that she would rule on Supreme Court cases with consideration to International law. She violated her oath to uphold the Constitution, and even worse emerged relatively unscathed. Our populace is drugged with bread and circuses......and are generally not worthy of the freedom they apathetically ignore.

Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:12 am

Yes, this decision was pretty chilling coming in a land that purports to respect private property to some degree. I heard a liberal respectfully quoting Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion. :shock: :lol: Up definitely is down!

So both liberals and conservatives are offended to some degree. I'm told Congress is stepping in to rectify this example of judicial over-reach.

Pete: Judge Souter's place is in New Hampshire. That's a great story. May his decision come around in bite him in the ass...The publicity alone was beautiful.

Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:14 pm

A suprising decision by the Supreme Court, but before you begin the sling arrows at the justices, you should read the whole opinion. Typically, there is a good rationale behind the majority's decision.

Scatter, while I understand your frustration at O'Connor's decision, I do not think we should be advocating impeachment of Supreme Court Justics, except in cthose cases when they commit criminal acts or other high crimes. Disagreeing with a decision does not meet this standard and if she were impeached for this reason, the checks and balance system would be forever limited.

Thu Jul 07, 2005 10:51 pm

Mike C wrote:A suprising decision by the Supreme Court, but before you begin the sling arrows at the justices, you should read the whole opinion. Typically, there is a good rationale behind the majority's decision.


And that's what's scary about it Mike. They can 'rationalize' what amounts to the taking by government of private property for private - not public - private developement!

The founding fathers would be appalled! Thank God they saw fit to give us the secondment amendment so that we could protect ourselves from an intrusive, power-hungry, property-grabbing government. But maybe that's the next thing to get 'rationalized' away!

Thu Jul 07, 2005 11:28 pm

Pete Dube wrote:
Mike C wrote:A suprising decision by the Supreme Court, but before you begin the sling arrows at the justices, you should read the whole opinion. Typically, there is a good rationale behind the majority's decision.


And that's what's scary about it Mike. They can 'rationalize' what amounts to the taking by government of private property for private - not public - private developement!

The founding fathers would be appalled! Thank God they saw fit to give us the secondment amendment so that we could protect ourselves from an intrusive, power-hungry, property-grabbing government. But maybe that's the next thing to get 'rationalized' away!


Actually, a far more effiecent and effective method would be to amend the constitution to prevent such action by the states.

Thu Jul 07, 2005 11:35 pm

Mike C wrote:A suprising decision by the Supreme Court, but before you begin the sling arrows at the justices, you should read the whole opinion. Typically, there is a good rationale behind the majority's decision.

Scatter, while I understand your frustration at O'Connor's decision, I do not think we should be advocating impeachment of Supreme Court Justics, except in cthose cases when they commit criminal acts or other high crimes. Disagreeing with a decision does not meet this standard and if she were impeached for this reason, the checks and balance system would be forever limited.


Sorry Mike, but based upon the oath she took to uphold the Constitution of the United States, she has committed a treasonous act. Period.

Upon reflection, you may have missed the switch of subjects in my post. I wasn't advocating O'Conner's impeachment for the idiotic decision she made in the Land Grab case.....(and I have read the decision. It devolves responsibilities down to the States. Fine. But it should never have gotten there since "Life, Liberty, and PROPERTY are the basis for Constitutional Law, as referenced and cited repeatedly from sources ranging from Blackstone to Locke, to English Common Law.)

O'Conner deserves impeachment for her stance that she would render decisions with consideration to International Law. THAT, my friend, is a violation of her oath of office and an impeachable offence. She swore to uphold and defend the Constitution......