What do you all think of THIS Supreme Court ruling?

[Jared]

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

oh how i hope this succeeds. my favorite part is how everyone gets a copy of atlas shrugged. i will make it a goal of my life to go to this hotel if it gets built.

I will make sure I spend at least one weekend there a year for the rest of my life, health permitting, if that gets built.

And the Atlas Shrugged thing is a stroke of genius.

[Big Buck 1981]

Look at the bright side, if that project doesn't get built on Souter's house, you can still go take a crap on his lawn!

[rcsodak]

Yeah, I'd pitch a fit. I'd likely not be willing to go to jail for the land, but I'd raise High Holy Hell.

And I'd support anyone that fell victim similarly.

My Republican values are all about smaller, less intrusive government. It also includes the idea of a free market where people can buy and sell without unreasonable constraints. I have a firm belief in property laws (both intellectual and tangible), and I believe in private ownership.

The modern idea of a "conservative" seems to be a dictatorship of the dollar bill, where citizens are beholden to corporations and mega-billionaires instead of a Gustapo or Czar. Those are not true conservative values however, that's simply a different kind of dictatorship, a different kind of servetude, and different manner of slavery.

Why the 'conservative' bashing, when the ruling was lib based?

[Alastor]

Why the 'conservative' bashing, when the ruling was lib based?

It's a conservative leaning Supreme Court already. It's a Conservative Congress, a Conservative House, and a Conservative Presidency. It would be a liberal decision - except that the liberals are not the ones in control right now. The conservatives are - and by no small amount.

This is their ball-game, which is exactly my point. The conservatives could have easily stopped this ruling from coming down, or rectified it since it's issuance. They have not. This is exactly what has me pissed.

The Neocons are not Republicans, and they're giving me a bad name. Now I wouldn't call them liberal either, mind you. I put them in one of two camps:

1) Corporate sell-outs

2) Religious idealogues

These however, are not conservative values. They're the values of those that have infiltrated and hijacked the true meaning of Republicanism. Hell, most Neocons don't even know what a "conservative" really is all about, and they know squat about the "Republican" ideal either... they're just busy rooting for their team. They happen to be cheering for my team right now so that's okay with me... until they do stupid crap like this.

So yeah, it's something a liberal court/government.etc would do, rc. For sure. It does indeed whack of socialism... except that those claiming to be conservatives and Republicans are the ones letting and making it happen.

I expect liberals to act like liberals. I expect frogs to croak like frogs. I expect ducks to fly like ducks. I do not expect dogs to meow, pigs to jump about on their tails and hind feet, or horses to lay eggs.

I do not like it when people who claim to be conservatives do this kind of crap, or are complacent accomplices to this type of anti-conservative legislation.

I expect my opponents to be my opponents... when my friends turn out to be the ones selling me out, I get a tad more tweaked about it.

[rcsodak]

It's a conservative leaning Supreme Court already. It's a Conservative Congress, a Conservative House, and a Conservative Presidency. It would be a liberal decision - except that the liberals are not the ones in control right now. The conservatives are - and by no small amount.

This is their ball-game, which is exactly my point. The conservatives could have easily stopped this ruling from coming down, or rectified it since it's issuance. They have not. This is exactly what has me pissed.

The Neocons are not Republicans, and they're giving me a bad name. Now I wouldn't call them liberal either, mind you. I put them in one of two camps:

1) Corporate sell-outs

2) Religious idealogues

These however, are not conservative values. They're the values of those that have infiltrated and hijacked the true meaning of Republicanism. Hell, most Neocons don't even know what a "conservative" really is all about, and they know squat about the "Republican" ideal either... they're just busy rooting for their team. They happen to be cheering for my team right now so that's okay with me... until they do stupid crap like this.

So yeah, it's something a liberal court/government.etc would do, rc. For sure. It does indeed whack of socialism... except that those claiming to be conservatives and Republicans are the ones letting and making it happen.

I expect liberals to act like liberals. I expect frogs to croak like frogs. I expect ducks to fly like ducks. I do not expect dogs to meow, pigs to jump about on their tails and hind feet, or horses to lay eggs.

I do not like it when people who claim to be conservatives do this kind of crap, or are complacent accomplices to this type of anti-conservative legislation.

I expect my opponents to be my opponents... when my friends turn out to be the ones selling me out, I get a tad more tweaked about it.

I honestly must have missed something here, then.....seeings how the 'conservative' judges all voted AGAINST the ruling....
And how does having the executive/legislative branches being conservative have anything to do with the judicial branch? Are they not their own entity?
Are you saying that W and his fellow conservatives can over-ride any ruling that they so choose?
If so, wouldn't they have done so with RvW?

[Jared]

I honestly must have missed something here, then.....seeings how the 'conservative' judges all voted AGAINST the ruling....
And how does having the executive/legislative branches being conservative have anything to do with the judicial branch? Are they not their own entity?
Are you saying that W and his fellow conservatives can over-ride any ruling that they so choose?
If so, wouldn't they have done so with RvW?

Because Justice Kennedy, as a conservative, did vote in favor of it. I think Alastor is feeling betrayed a bit.


I am having trouble believing ANYONE could vote for this.

[Alastor]

I honestly must have missed something here, then.....seeings how the 'conservative' judges all voted AGAINST the ruling....
And how does having the executive/legislative branches being conservative have anything to do with the judicial branch? Are they not their own entity?
Are you saying that W and his fellow conservatives can over-ride any ruling that they so choose?
If so, wouldn't they have done so with RvW?

What Jared said.

Also, the conservative legislatures and White House could have quite easily stepped in to challenge or thwart the move - like they did for Terri Schaivo - but they've chosen not to, and many of the conservative politicians have embraced and been actively working towards a decision of this nature for quite some time.

As to your RvW anecdotal hypothetical... I don't think there's enough support for an over-turn of Roe V Wade, and it'd be a hot topic issue. The American people would absolutely come out and make their voices heard over Roe V Wade... and Bush would lose (abortion rights are supported by a narrow majority).

This is low on the radar (or lower at least) and most Americans would support a repeal or re-write of the laws allowing this type of property siezure.

They did it for Schaivo... where are they now? Oh yeah... they're busy counting their fat checks and fund-raising perks that they got from corporations for either supporting and actively working for this result, or sitting idly by and staying out of the way.

[Alastor]

Have I ever told y'all how much I dig Libertarians? I mean... they're kind of idiologues, and they're not grounded in reality, and what they propose would be a perfectly utopian society and world, but it simply ain't possible. They're cute and clever, and they can help sometimes, but they're simply unrealistic - like smurfs.

In any case, God bless the smurfs!

By ANNE SAUNDERS, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 23 minutes ago

PLAINFIELD, N.H. - Libertarians upset about a Supreme Court ruling on land taking have proposed seizing a justice's vacation home and turning it into a park, echoing efforts aimed at another justice who lives in the state.
ADVERTISEMENT

Organizers are trying to collect enough signatures to go before the town next spring to ask to use Justice Stephen G. Breyer's 167-acre Plainfield property for a "Constitution Park" with stone monuments to commemorate the U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions.

"In the spirit of the ruling, we're recreating the same use of eminent domain," said John Babiarz, the Libertarian Party's state chairman.

The plot mirrors the party's ongoing effort to get the town of Weare, about 45 miles to the southeast, to seize Justice
David Souter's home. Souter's property is also the focus of a proposal by a California man who suggested the town turn the farmhouse into a "Lost Liberty Hotel."

The efforts are meant in protest of the high court's June ruling that let a Connecticut city take land by eminent domain and turn it over to a private developer. Breyer and Souter supported the decision.

Through a spokesman, Breyer declined to comment on the matter Friday. Souter has also declined comment.

Plainfield Town Administrator Steve Halleran said he didn't expect Plainfield voters to support the Breyer effort, but Logan Darrow Clements, of Los Angeles, said he's gotten support from thousands of people across the country for his Souter plan, and the town clerk in Weare said she had to return checks from people wishing to donate to a hotel construction fund.

The Supreme Court's 5-4 court ruling lets officials in New London, Conn., take older homes along the city's waterfront for a private developer who plans to build offices, a hotel and convention center.

Source.

Go boys, go!

Three apples high, just tall enough to bite some ankles.

[Superchop7]

The timing of O'Connor leaving (after this bull**** decision) may or may not be a coincidence.