Thursday, June 23, 2005

I don't think we're in America anymore Toto

High Court Expands Reach of Eminent Domain
WASHINGTON - Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court (search) ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.

He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing - David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.
The usual jackasses.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

This is un-American. Men died to protect our rights as individuals and now 5 lawyers, 5 social engineers, have erased a huge part of what America stands for.

I hope that Mr. Winkle and all property owners are willing to stand up to this tyranny. This is a fight that we must take on if America, as intended, is to survive. Obviously the same media who cheers for the hippie who chains himself to a tree will sneer at a working American who stands in the way of a bulldozer about to raze his house. The bloodsucking citcommissionersrs whose salary is paid for by our work will demand that we relent our property so that they may have more money for needle exchange programs, public artwork, free abortions and benefits for illegal aliens.

Is that what the founders of this great country intended? Are we so apathetic that we would allow government elites to decide what constitutes "public good?" We know what government thinks is "good" for the public: more power, more influence, more interference, more functions, more involvement, more programs, more more more more!

Who decides what is good for you? Will you let commissionon tell you that there is a better use for your property? Will you let commissionon or a judge decide what "just compensation" for your property is? Maybe the commission thinks the public would be better served if you local church was an abortion clinic. Maybe they think the public would be better served if the local gun range was an art gallery.

This is a turning point for America and we should all be outraged.

Amendment V
No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Karl Marx
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property

Charlton Heston
From my cold, dead hands.

On a completely unrelated note, I highly recommend for all your armed resistance needs.


Sailor Republica said...

The only other person who owns my property is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The Supreme Court, and Judge Anthony Kennedy especially, can commit seppuku with a dull stick.

Daniel said...

That dull stick can be "community property" of all five affirming judges in this case.

Gullyborg said...

Look on the bright side...

Now, if there is something you don't like in your city, like that feminist bookstore, or that socialist hangout coffee shop, you can come up with a new land use proposal that would increase city property tax revenue and BAM! nuisance is removed.

Of course, it will also work on gun stores and other conservative hangouts...

Anonymous said...


No, you are correct, it's Portland, Oregon ,Where flag burning is taught,the 4th largest dope smoking, cell phone taxing(Bet it's a done deal) Nascar/Christian hating, terror cell supporting, socialist voting bunch of insane libs are taking over in droves.

The Rambling Taoist said...

I'm surprised you're upset about this. It's very fitting for a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court. Yes, the 3 more liberal justices voted for it, but they were joined by 2 of the CONSERVATIVES.

As to the decision itself, it might surprise you that I strongly agree that it sucks big time, though my objections to it aren't the same as yours.

Anonymous said...

No, you are correct, it's Portland, Oregon ,Where flag burning is taught,the 4th largest dope smoking, cell phone taxing(Bet it's a done deal) Nascar/Christian hating, terror cell supporting, socialist voting bunch of insane libs are taking over in droves.

The court decision sucks, RINO judges, and the above post to you stands.

Daniel said...

I guess you and I have a different definition of "conservative" Trey.

Thomas and Scalia are conservative. Rehnquist is somewhat conservative.
The rest are social engineers.

What are your objections to this Trey? Does it "disproportionaly affect the poor?" Nice that some people are worried about the "rights of the poor" but not the rights of every American.

Sailor Republica said...

Trey, thou art a moron.

The vote was: Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens, Kennedy.

There was only one that could even have been considered conservative, and he totally lost it with citing international law in Lawrence v. TX. Hell, even Sandra Day O'Connor (who is normally more moderate than Kennedy) was a dissenting vote.

The Rambling Taoist said...

Sailor Republica,
Thanks for the endearment! Also, one must remember that one's perspective dictates whether one views the current court as conservative or liberal.

For you, a rabid conservative, I suppose the court seems liberal. For me, a diehard leftist, the court is very conservative.

My chief objection is that a shopping mall is not a common good. Most often, it's a money making venture for a few people.

In today's world, a shopping mall is filled with national merchandisers who try to do in local businesses.

Sailor Republica said...

My view is not that of a radical conservative, it's more that of a pragmatic conservative who can identify people by their actions.

Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens are all leftist. Ginsburg is a Marxist Leftist, Breyer and Souter are Limousine Leftists, and Stevens is a old moron.

O'Connor and Kennedy are confused moderates. They decide (nowadays) by looking at international law. That is hard to be considered moderate when you're looking at a leftist ideal in international law (rather than looking at the law in YOUR OWN COUNTRY).

Scalia and Thomas are the arch-conservatives, those who will defend the conservative side until doomsday (mostly).

That leaves Rehnquist as the only REAL true moderate on the court, who decides by looking at American law and common sense thinking.

Remember, there are no liberals anymore. There are leftists, moderates, and conservatives.