SUPREME COURT GRANTS SPECIAL RIGHTS BASED UPON SIZE OF WALLET

I'm so disgusted today I could just spit.

HOW DARE THEY????

As of today, wrangling over Supreme Court justice nominations is officially off the list of issues I give a damn about. When so-called "Liberal" justices are perfectly willing to grant wealthy individuals and corporations special rights to property simply by virtue of the wealth they have accumulated, there is no hope whatsoever for anything remotely resembling justice in our so-called "Justice System".

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 Sanday Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America _ was a defeat for some 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.

Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783.html

If so, I see your disgust and raise you a :puke: and a :banghead:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1428902/posts

Wow. Maybe we could form a coalition government, or something. ;-)

Unless you are a corporation.

Sad day when a creation that is made of paper, legalese and hot air has more rights in this country than a flesh and blood human being.

guess there's no denying...we the people have no right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

you know what time it is folks.

Shameful, really. From the NYTs article:


Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.

''The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue,'' Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.


snip

''Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,'' O'Connor wrote. ''The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.''

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

So, WTF is going on here?

There's no sense in getting up in arms about any judicial nomination ever gain.

And I won't. Any that comes up is 100% meaningless because there is no justice within this system.

we DUers typically vilify (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas) seem to be on the little guy side of this issue and the typical voices of reason on the SCOTUS seem to siding with the corporations.

''Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,'' O'Connor wrote. ''The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.''

Can't believe that the other Justices couldn't see this.

but, I am heartened to see that, at least the freepers understand that many rank-and-file liberals and DUers are not in favor of this. Also, reading their thread makes me happy that a few of them have posted on the dangers of a corporate government and capitalism at the expense of everything else.

On the other hand, this is before "message control" has gotten to them, and if Rove can craft a message that nails the more liberal justices, and effectively minimizes the brutality of corporations and their rabid quest for capital, then they could potentially hand us our ass with this. Especially, as propaganda central "simplifies" the message: "liberals want to take your homes away."

And, of course, getting everyone to stand together and effectively fight against this, and preserve freedom, won't mean a damn thing to them -- since they, as well, are working for the corporations. They'll just whip the freepers up, and convince them it was all "liberal doings," as the corporations encroach on their freedoms in myriad other ways.

A very important point to keep in mind is that three of the justices who voted "Yes" WERE appointed by Republicans.

Fuck them, anyway. And fuck all the "justice"s who voted for this.

1. You have the notion that local government needs to be empowered, and there is the everlasting hope, that government is democratic and always on the lookout for the common good.

2. You have private businesses that are seeking to benefit from the process.

It was a hard call. Personally I am usually against eminent domain because it prevents the property owner from getting the maximum benefit from their sale- the compensation they ultimately get is nowhere near what they would get if they had been allowed to negotiate with the business freely. The government is able to seize their property at whatever price they deem fair.

As for our justices, they (rightly) ruled in favor of government, with a blind eye to the ultimate benefits to private enterprise.

Unbelievable, particularly in today's political climate, to not be able to see the potential ramifications of this ruling. O'Connor was absolutely right in her dissenting comments.

The justices in the majority were WRONG and I will never again give a damn who ends up on the court.

It's over.

.

that the so-called "liberal wing" of the SC is as much a fiction as the "liberal media."

This decision is doubly galling in that it legitimizes Dubya's ill-gotten fortune. The luckiest bastard in the world scores again!

to vote the way they did

all they had to do was get ONE justice to go with them, then they could all claim to be on the side of the little guy

get it?

pretty smart, those fascists

and WTF*$%(#@& is UP with those idiots that voted in favor of corporations over PEOPLE?

this is one of the most astounding decisions I've ever seen?

based on that logic, ALL federal civil rights legislation should be reviewed and declared unconstitutional, correct?

This decision has really opended up my eyes to what is REALLY going on in this country.

We're getting it from both sides and the only way to fix it is to tear it all down and start from scratch!

This ruling gives local governments the power to take property for the common good. We just need the correct people in local government.

Turn it into a Hooters.

Direct your fire elsewhere.

It's fucking Scalia.

and for private property rights. This is standard conservative mentality.

You have to hand it to the coporations, they are smartly becoming government itself. We had our own problem right here in Manhattan when the New York Times decided to enlist the help of the State of New York in condemning several properties to build their new headquarters- it has initiated a whole new fight centered on "eminent domain abuse".
Interesting concept, and obviously a real problem.

...had his childhood home in Stoneham, MA taken and demolished by eminent domain after they initially won a vote to drop the development plans for a park.

Eventually, it came up again for a vote and the town council was persuaded to reverse their decision. They went ahead with the project and demolished the houses.

What changed? The Chamber of Commerce got involved. You see, those houses were also in close proximity to certain businesses.

its too weird

A Hooters would not increase the boobery at that locatin one bit.

What bra size is a Souter opinion? Most range from AAA to DD. I think Souter is an FU.

I sent nastygrams to several public officials. If I could get O'Conner's address I would send her a thank you. I am going to google for that next.

And it is time to write my weekly letter to the editor for him to throw away. He might not though.

If you know any freepers, you might use this as a bridge issue. This is not a place where it is us gainst the freepers. This is an issue where it us agaisnt the MAN. There are too many wedge issues in this country right now, where the powers that be make us mad at each other so we are so busy yelling at each other that we don't see them robbing us in the background. Let the bad guys know we are on tot them at last!

John Paul Stevens - Republican
Anthony Kennedy - Republican
David H. Souter - Republican
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Democrat
Stephen G. Breyer - Democrat

Three Republicans and two Democrats, united against the people.