| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Emma Goldman
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Location: state of anarchy
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm shocked that Ginsberg voted for it and O'Conner was the one to launch the stern dissent:
| Quote: |
| Stevens' opinion provoked a strongly worded dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote that the ruling favors the most powerful and influential in society and leaves small property owners little recourse. Now, she wrote, "the specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." |
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/24/MNGHTDEBTV1.DTL
Funny how property rights really matter in a capitalist state. And who they matter for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Funny how property rights really matter in a capitalist state. And who they matter for. |
That's pretty cryptic, even for a dead woman. Mind elaborating? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Funny how property rights really matter in a capitalist state. And who they matter for. |
That's pretty cryptic, even for a dead woman. Mind elaborating? |
Rorschach question- interpret it any way you like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Rorschach question- interpret it any way you like.
|
That's not far off a definition of anarchy, is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Emma Goldman
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Location: state of anarchy
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
Rorschach question- interpret it any way you like.
|
That's not far off a definition of anarchy, is it? |
It seems to me, in my muddled dead memory, that property rights are the linchpin of capitalism. Yet it is primarily the property of the wealthy that generally gets protection. The property in question in this Court decision is that of working class people.
| Quote: |
| The Supreme Court rules that local governments can seize a person's home or business in order to make way for private economic development. The 5-to-4 decision was a defeat for seven Connecticut property owners whose homes are slated to be torn down for a development project that would include a hotel and offices. |
Or, as someone once said, some are more equal than others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:03 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
This may seem a bit odd, but I thought the government was always able to do this.
I thought it was about how much they would pay you.
My Government teacher told me to immediately bury a few paupered dead there so they'd pay you the highest price: cemetary rates.
Not that I want them to, but doesn't the government have eminent domain over all US land?
In other words, are we talking eminent domain as it's been applied to poor people for decades if not centuries, or something new?
Perhaps I'm ill-informed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, so it can build a school, freeway, etc, not for some damn strip mall. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hank Scorpio
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't see why you'd be so shocked to find yourself in agreement Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas; they're strict constructionists. Screw the whole idea of "balance" when it comes to the SCOTUS, I want judges who will follow the exact letter of the constitution and nothing else. You'll also note that Rehnquist dissented on the marijuana ruling while the "left" judges ruled against medical marijuana. And again, Rehnquist and Scalia were the two main voices speaking out against the entire idiotic notion of using the laws of other countries to interpret our own.
The "living, breathing document" school of the judiciary can all kiss my black ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The "living, breathing document" school of the judiciary can all kiss my black ass. |
I consider myself a constitutional conservative but it can be taken too far. The example that comes to mind are the idiots who said the government couldn't build the interstate highway system because there is not a specific clause in the Constitution. Idiots, I say. Idiots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hank Scorpio wrote: |
I don't see why you'd be so shocked to find yourself in agreement Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas; they're strict constructionists. Screw the whole idea of "balance" when it comes to the SCOTUS, I want judges who will follow the exact letter of the constitution and nothing else. You'll also note that Rehnquist dissented on the marijuana ruling while the "left" judges ruled against medical marijuana. And again, Rehnquist and Scalia were the two main voices speaking out against the entire idiotic notion of using the laws of other countries to interpret our own.
The "living, breathing document" school of the judiciary can all kiss my black ass. |
actually scalia, who you hold in such high regard, ruled against medicinal marijuana. Hence another reason for the title to this thread. You're right about rehnquist though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
