Home | Community | Message Board


Everything Mushrooms
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePirate_Patrick
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/20/05
Posts: 342
Last seen: 9 years, 11 months
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes
    #4328148 - 06/23/05 12:59 PM (11 years, 5 months ago)

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes

Quote:

WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

The 5-4 ruling ? assailed by dissenting Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America ? was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. 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.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.




What the hell? All thats going to happen is more people will be digruntled and angry. Some homes can be very personal and sentimentel to its owners.

Quote:

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."




:thumbup:

Quote:

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub.

More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs. Last month, the
Pentagon also announced plans to close the U.S. Naval Submarine Base, one of the city's largest employers, which would eliminate thousands of jobs.

The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.




:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :mad2:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: Pirate_Patrick]
    #4328164 - 06/23/05 01:04 PM (11 years, 5 months ago)

And yet another stunningly bad decision from this Supreme Court. The current court is a bad joke. SCOTUS over the decades has made some pretty glaring errors, but this incarnation of the court is the worst and most activist ever.

The only hope is for a few of them to die or retire and have Bush appoint non-activist justices. Not that I wish harm to any of the current justices, mind -- just stating the obvious.



Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: Phred]
    #4328182 - 06/23/05 01:10 PM (11 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
The only hope is for a few of them to die or retire and have Bush appoint non-activist justices.



:lol:


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: Pirate_Patrick]
    #4328229 - 06/23/05 01:20 PM (11 years, 5 months ago)

This ruling is among the best for defining the judges on the court. I don't like the ruling handed down. I can appreciate how it defined the judges involved. The knowledge gained should be used to determine what kind of judges we want when future vacancies occur.


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: lonestar2004]
    #4328244 - 06/23/05 01:22 PM (11 years, 5 months ago)

Stevens added that "because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment."

He was joined in that view by justices Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Dissenting were justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as well as Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 3 months, 20 days
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: Pirate_Patrick]
    #4328262 - 06/23/05 01:28 PM (11 years, 5 months ago)

God damn, this is ridiculous.

Until now, I was terrfied of seeing Bush appoint new judges. I'm starting to think the Court can't get more fucked than it is now.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: Redstorm]
    #4328266 - 06/23/05 01:29 PM (11 years, 5 months ago)

one of the main reasons i voted for bush. (appoint new judges)

the five judges who did this are commies.

the dissenting judges are conservative.


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama


Edited by lonestar2004 (06/23/05 01:30 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 3 months, 20 days
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: lonestar2004]
    #4328276 - 06/23/05 01:32 PM (11 years, 5 months ago)

This directly violates the 5th Amendment. Anyone who does not see this is a damn fool.

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

How are they being compensated for their homes being bulldozed? Market value? That just doesn't cut it.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: Redstorm]
    #4328297 - 06/23/05 01:35 PM (11 years, 5 months ago)

here in Texas (fast growth) i have seen people forced to sell their home over a shoping mall and a high school.


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama


Edited by lonestar2004 (06/23/05 06:36 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinespoke
Stranger
Registered: 06/20/05
Posts: 17
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: Pirate_Patrick]
    #4328482 - 06/23/05 02:21 PM (11 years, 5 months ago)

horrific....
stand up and change the universal mind...
change ur own mind...
this planet is our home...
if 'taking your home to make way for a commercial mall and a 'buy buy buy' mentality' is a microcosm of what our 'leaders' are planning for the future, then believe me,.... this is just the beginning of a global capitalistic takeover...
Their intentions are not being made clear, yet are obvious if we simply stand back and consider their behaviour; Looting the planet (our home) and NOT GIVING A F**K ABT THE CHILDREN OF THE FUTURE.

STOP CONSUMING SO MUCH.... stand together... we are a tribe....

peace (spoke - uk)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: Redstorm]
    #4328531 - 06/23/05 02:37 PM (11 years, 5 months ago)

I don't think it's for public use... Pfizer is gonna build a research center there that is worth over 200 million. Pfizer is a private company. That is also the reason I am going into biochem and biotech; there is going to be a huge expansion of biotech companies which include pharmaceuticals. money money money money, brand new benz, money money money, hahaha


--------------------



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 3 months, 20 days
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: downforpot]
    #4328551 - 06/23/05 02:40 PM (11 years, 5 months ago)

Well, if it's for private use, then I would imagine it would be unconstitutional. The state can't just take one private entity's property and hand it to another private entity.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: Redstorm]
    #4328744 - 06/23/05 03:38 PM (11 years, 5 months ago)

The Supremes have just ruled that the state can indeed do just that.

Activist judges are an abomination -- perhaps the greatest abomination facing America today.



Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: Pirate_Patrick]
    #4329004 - 06/23/05 05:03 PM (11 years, 5 months ago)

Wow, so like, my property really belongs to the government? Wow. Well, at least it's not socialism.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 6 days
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: Redstorm]
    #4329748 - 06/23/05 08:34 PM (11 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
This directly violates the 5th Amendment. Anyone who does not see this is a damn fool.

Unfortunately it doesn't because five assholes said it doesn't.

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The ruling requires compensation but it is still wrong.

How are they being compensated for their homes being bulldozed? Market value? That just doesn't cut it.

Yeah, it'll be somebody who is paying who decides what is "just" too





--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAnisotropic
Stranger
Registered: 07/28/04
Posts: 538
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: Pirate_Patrick]
    #4330028 - 06/23/05 09:38 PM (11 years, 5 months ago)

No one can even remotely clame that America is 'free' now.

"Sorry we bulldozed you're grandmothers house, but we thought a starbucks would be better there."

"But there is a Starbucks across the street."

"The Government knows best, put him on the list of people that ask questions..."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAnisotropic
Stranger
Registered: 07/28/04
Posts: 538
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: Pirate_Patrick]
    #4330228 - 06/23/05 10:30 PM (11 years, 5 months ago)

I really hope the first homes to be taken away, under this new ruleing, belong to the members of the Supreme Court.

But of course we all know that would NEVER happen.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineHagbardCeline
Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/10/03
Posts: 9,805
Loc: Overjoyed, at the bottom ...
Last seen: 8 hours, 22 minutes
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: Pirate_Patrick]
    #4330271 - 06/23/05 10:37 PM (11 years, 5 months ago)

As cynical about SCOTUS as I am, I just didn't believe they had they balls to try and justify this. I'm absolutely floored.

My family actually had some property seized by ID in Texas. It was about 3/4's of an acre from a 2.5 acre plot, but to widen a road - something that was actually needed. I understood that and we were actually compensated quite farely getting nearly as much for the seized part as we paid for the whole property.

How they could get this so wrong is beyond me. Has anyone in Congress talked about changing the law or amending the Constitution to prevent this?


--------------------
I keep it real because I think it is important that a highly esteemed individual such as myself keep it real lest they experience the dreaded spontaneous non-existance of no longer keeping it real. - Hagbard Celine


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 3 months, 20 days
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4330552 - 06/24/05 12:02 AM (11 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Redstorm said:
This directly violates the 5th Amendment. Anyone who does not see this is a damn fool.

Unfortunately it doesn't because five assholes said it doesn't.

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The ruling requires compensation but it is still wrong.

How are they being compensated for their homes being bulldozed? Market value? That just doesn't cut it.

Yeah, it'll be somebody who is paying who decides what is "just" too








Even if this was used for the public, which is is not, the government should pay well over market value just for the inconvenience of having land forcibly taken from your possession.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes [Re: Pirate_Patrick]
    #4330569 - 06/24/05 12:08 AM (11 years, 5 months ago)

Man, the blogosphere is all over this one already -- leftblogs, libertarianblogs and conservablogs alike. Near universal condemnation from all quarters.

Below is just a tiny sprinkling of some comments I cherry-picked from various blogs I check on a regular basis. Sorry I didn't bother to save the links to any of them, but if anyone wants to check out Powerline or Instapundit or Captain's Quarters or NRO or Michelle Malkin or literally hundreds of others they'll quickly find twice as many gems as this.

How the Libbie Supremes on this court were able to completely ignore the clear intent of the Fifth Amendment in this case is something that still boggles my mind... even after the numerous other disastrous decisions they've handed down over the last couple of years. This one really takes the cake. I mean really takes the cake. A more clear disdain of constitutional law by the supposed guardians of that constitution would be impossible to find.

The decision on medical marijuana was bad, but this latest clusterfuck is nothing short of tragic. A tragic farce, yes, but a tragedy is still a tragedy.

Heaven help the American Republic. All remaining sense of sanity has fled.





"Forget the Schiavo case?if you want to see a ruling that leads to contempt for, and anger at, the judiciary, over the long term this is the one."

"While You Were Busy Protesting The Patriot Act...?...the government took your house. I'm sure the residents of New London, Connecticut will be happy to know that while their houses are being demolished, their library records will be safely locked away."

"What's the point of a written Constitution if the rights that are explicitly there get ignored, and rights that no one bothered to get approved by Congress and ratified by the states, are upheld?"

"I guess we should have been expecting a decision like this since the Supreme Court justices have been citing precedents from Zimbabawe. Why shouldn't they endorse the type of land expropriation that Robert Mugabe has been practicing there?"



Jesus wept.








Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* U.S. Supreme Court rules it's okay for local governments to use eminent domain to seize property for JaguarWarrior101 534 2 06/24/05 01:41 PM
by Phred
* Supreme Court ruling: police may now use drug sniffing dogs during routine traffic stops SWEDEN 1,885 15 01/29/05 07:00 PM
by Swami
* Supreme Court rules against medical marijuana Agent Cooper 2,773 12 09/10/12 10:36 PM
by MEEZIE
* Bush's response to Supreme Courts ruling on Guantanimo elbisivni 490 3 06/12/08 11:19 PM
by Chemy
* Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
SirTripAlot 8,820 176 03/21/08 12:10 PM
by buckwheat
* Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SeussA 3,675 61 06/28/08 09:10 PM
by Prisoner#1
* US supreme court quashes illegal guantanmo trials carbonhoots 760 5 07/01/06 08:44 AM
by niteowl
* Dire Consequences with a McCain Supreme Court? danknugz81 554 3 05/16/08 04:26 PM
by zappaisgod

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
2,476 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:

Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.092 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 16 queries.