Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Calexico77, Jun 28, 2005.
Payback is a bitch..
Sounds like a good vacation spot to me...
The motive/circumstances of the taking would run afoul of the recent decision and wouldn't be allowed......but as a piss take goes.....good on them.
This is a great idea. Even if it fails, which in all seriousness will, it succeeds in proving an important and basic principle. I hope it causes Justice Souter to reflect on his decision again.
Unlikely. Probably he's just rolling his eyes and laughing at those guys.
Sadly true, but still funny.
What important and basic principle is this "proving"?
Maybe. But, if the town would seriously consider sending a notice of its intent, Justice Souter would have to hire a lawyer and defend against the condemnation. How great would that be for him to have to pay some lawyers.
I think someone needs to merge these two threads.
Something tells me this isn't going to get that far.
And no, I don't think it would be great.
Why? I believe that it does a person in a high position some good to occasioanlly have to deal with the real world stuff the rest of us deal with, particularly when they make decisions that affect all of us.
When you are at that level, real life experience plays a role in how you perceive things. A justice who has a child or grandchild that had an abortion might view that issue differently after the fact.
Clarence Thomas made perhaps his most poignant comments on an issue of race (might have been affirmative action) and it was based on his real life experience and the experiences of his family.
Look at Arlen Spector in the current stem cell debate. Of course it is not great that he has cancer, but my point is the effect of personal experience on a decision maker.
Good points generally.....but probably a bit mis-directed with regard to Souter. Out of all the Justices, he is probably the least pretentious and more "in touch" at least from all the things I've read about him.
True, but it is my belief that all nine could use a swift kick in the @$$ to varying degrees.
Every once in a while, I go to the clerk's office and file my own motions or I go to the sheriff's office to have something served, just to keep a foot on the ground when I am generally asking our running around people to do stuff for me.
Maybe that is the answer. When a justice writes an opinion, he or she should have to go to the DC Circuit court clerk's office and stand in line to file the opinion. Then he or she should have to prepare envelopes and serve it on all parties and the other 8 justices.
Are you a believer in property rights?
Reminds me of a saying...
A liberal is a consevative who has yet to be mugged!
Sort of hope these guys are sucessful. How delicious would that be!
I'm a believer in sensible property rights.
You didn't answer my question.
Counselor, you and I disagree on a lot of issues but I do not believe you are one to engage in specious legal reasoning......therefore, I find it hard to believe, if you've read the decision, that you would be joining in the chorus of chicken littles saying this is the end of private property rights. You know that's not true.
In light of the contex of this entire issue, and the goal of the person seeking to build on Justice Souter's property, the basic principle trying to be made should be self evident to the onlooker, unless your world view is completely different or opposite.
We are in agreement...I simply said that I found the irony somewhat delicious.
I mean, if you are the person who was on the losing side of the argument to which Souter sat in the majority, you might find some justice in Souter losing his home in a similiar situation...
I'm not sure about my "world view"....at least as you're defining it.....but I know that my view of Supreme Court jurisprudence generally and the Kelo decision in particular is much less simplistic than that of the perpetrators of the stunt referenced in the article.
Here's the essential thing that should concern people (obviously this hasn't happened to some of you on this thread). The change in the verbage of when eminent domain can be applied. Instead of being applied only to public use, it now is being applied, in this decision, to public purpose, or essentially public "benefit." Is this semantical? I argue no, because words carry meaning. Many people are realizing the slippery slope caused by this new precedent. Where does one draw the line as to what is public benefit and what is not, how far do you take that. Conversely, it was fairly easy to identify what is public use and what is not (i.e. government owned property or infrastructure for public use).
Anyway, it looks like this story is picking up some steam:
New Hampshire town inundated with support to take justice's home
Please read the entire opinion. That change from "use" to "purpose" occurred nearly 100 years ago. Not one of the justices argues against that fact of when the change occurred. In fact, Justice Thomas laments it.
1905. I know when it occured. That got the precedent ball rolling, now it's in fruition.
Now answer my question that you cleverly ignored earlier.