Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > General Discussion


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-28-2005, 04:27 PM   #1 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Freestar Media CEO files application to demolish SCOTUS Justice's home to build hotel

http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html
Quote:
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
Unfortunately, nobody who has a .tv domain instead of a regular top-level domain extension is going to scrape together enough cash to do this, but it's a fun idea. I hope that the show at least gets some airtime aroudn here.
MSD is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 04:55 PM   #2 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Now this is good.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 05:46 PM   #3 (permalink)
All important elusive independent swing voter...
 
jorgelito's Avatar
 
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
I love this. Awesome!
__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter
jorgelito is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 05:48 PM   #4 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
Well they will have to play the game just like the developers in other areas and pay off the 3 Selectmen. Shouldn't cost too much. They will probably be able to influence a low "just compensation" price as well.
flstf is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 08:42 PM   #5 (permalink)
Browncoat
 
Telluride's Avatar
 
Location: California
I love it!

I may have to take a vacation in New Hampshire if this hotel actually gets built.
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek
Telluride is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 03:39 AM   #6 (permalink)
Mulletproof
 
Psycho Dad's Avatar
 
Location: Some nucking fut house.
I'd reserve a room were this to happen.
__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts.
Psycho Dad is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 04:18 AM   #7 (permalink)
Addict
 
braisler's Avatar
 
Location: Midway, KY
Eminent domain is just crap anyway! Now the government can take people's property in the name of greater tax revenue only. That is incredible.
__________________
---
You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
- Albert Einstein
---
braisler is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 05:01 AM   #8 (permalink)
pig
pigglet pigglet
 
pig's Avatar
 
Location: Locash
I heard about this on the way into work this am. I'd like to see all the majority opinion justices hit with something like this, as well as the CEO's of the company that initiated the lawsuit. Good for the goose, good for the gander.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
pig is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 06:40 AM   #9 (permalink)
I am Winter Born
 
Pragma's Avatar
 
Location: Alexandria, VA
It is a very amusing attack back at one of the worst decisions by SCOTUS. I predict that there will be a lot of people rioting, etc. when developers buy off a town's property board and go in and start taking over houses.

I'm not too sure if this guy has the necessary capital to run his idea through to completion, but it would be great to see it done.
Pragma is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 09:06 AM   #10 (permalink)
beauty in the breakdown
 
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
I just read this on BoingBoing and burst out laughing. Absolutely hilarious, and proves why the ruling was so unbelievably bad.
__________________
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
--Plato
sailor is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 09:28 AM   #11 (permalink)
All important elusive independent swing voter...
 
jorgelito's Avatar
 
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
I really hope it works.
__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter
jorgelito is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 09:31 AM   #12 (permalink)
pig
pigglet pigglet
 
pig's Avatar
 
Location: Locash
Sounds like he might want to start looking for investors if he doesn't have the capital to fund it. What a great way for people to express their feelings about the decision in a capitalist society.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
pig is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 09:18 PM   #13 (permalink)
Browncoat
 
Telluride's Avatar
 
Location: California
Earlier this evening I saw Logan Darrow Clements on Hannity and Colmes. He was well-spoken and seemed intelligent.
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek
Telluride is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 06:37 AM   #14 (permalink)
Registered User
 
frogza's Avatar
 
Location: Right Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by pigglet
Sounds like he might want to start looking for investors if he doesn't have the capital to fund it. What a great way for people to express their feelings about the decision in a capitalist society.
I'd send some money. Where do I sign up?
frogza is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 06:59 AM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Amusing.

Here's a question. Can a SCOTUS decision be reversed? I'm curious as to the legalities.


Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 07:47 AM   #16 (permalink)
Comment or else!!
 
KellyC's Avatar
 
Location: Home sweet home
aha!...it came back and bite him in the arse.
__________________
Him: Ok, I have to ask, what do you believe?
Me: Shit happens.
KellyC is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 08:14 AM   #17 (permalink)
Like John Goodman, but not.
 
Journeyman's Avatar
 
Location: SFBA, California
SCOTUS decisions can be reversed either through deciding differently on a similar case after the first case, or through legislative (read: Constitutional amendment) means.
Journeyman is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 09:10 AM   #18 (permalink)
The Griffin
 
Hanxter's Avatar
 
state rep. neal kurk (r - weare) whose wife is a town selectman said he also disagrees with the court's decision and sees clements' action as poetic justice but added he'll oppose any government seizure of souter's home

"Justice Souter's property will be protected by the good sense of New Hampshire townspeople,'' he said

screw him too
Hanxter is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 09:49 AM   #19 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Gotta love Karma....I hope this goes through.
odu_sonar_AE is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 10:13 AM   #20 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
I find it quite amusing that those who don't like the law would rather use it than change it.

As I have stated on another thread this "law" was on the books in the city of New London. The SC basically upheld a local law.

You can change this ruling by having your community/state put on the ballot a simple law that makes this illegal. As the AG of Georgia pointed out, that state already has the law that makes this illegal.

I swear some people listen too much to others and would rather work up into a frenzy than look at the true facts.

I guess it's just easier to blame others for laziness than to get out and do something.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 10:24 AM   #21 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I find it quite amusing that those who don't like the law would rather use it than change it.

As I have stated on another thread this "law" was on the books in the city of New London. The SC basically upheld a local law.

You can change this ruling by having your community/state put on the ballot a simple law that makes this illegal. As the AG of Georgia pointed out, that state already has the law that makes this illegal.

I swear some people listen too much to others and would rather work up into a frenzy than look at the true facts.

I guess it's just easier to blame others for laziness than to get out and do something.
Oh irony....

Anyways, they are 'using' the law to point out how stupid the 'law' is, which is, in this case, poetic justice.

And if you think its that easy to change a city council, I have some soon to be confiscated by the government property to sell you.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 11:54 AM   #22 (permalink)
pig
pigglet pigglet
 
pig's Avatar
 
Location: Locash
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I find it quite amusing that those who don't like the law would rather use it than change it.

As I have stated on another thread this "law" was on the books in the city of New London. The SC basically upheld a local law.

You can change this ruling by having your community/state put on the ballot a simple law that makes this illegal. As the AG of Georgia pointed out, that state already has the law that makes this illegal.
maybe, but between now and then, someone is losing their house. kind of a strange time for the supremes to get all state's rights. not that i'm a fan of big federal gov...but this would seem to be a pretty clear cut case of "that's fucked up."
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
pig is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 04:50 PM   #23 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Journeyman
SCOTUS decisions can be reversed either through deciding differently on a similar case after the first case, or through legislative (read: Constitutional amendment) means.
So the Supreme Court can effectively reverse its previsous decisions?

Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 11:42 PM   #24 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
So the Supreme Court can effectively reverse its previsous decisions?

Mr Mephisto
Only if a case similar gets picked to their docket and reviewed by the sitting justices.

If it says anything about it, it's easier to get an Amendment passed.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 11:57 PM   #25 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by pigglet
maybe, but between now and then, someone is losing their house. kind of a strange time for the supremes to get all state's rights. not that i'm a fan of big federal gov...but this would seem to be a pretty clear cut case of "that's fucked up."
I agree it is fucked up but the SC is screwed either way. If they strike the law down, they'd have people saying, "WTF look how the SC refuses to let us make our own laws." And as it did pass, "WTF look how the SC legislates from the bench." Even though it was a LOCAL law they upheld.

It's not that hard to change your area to make sure you get a law protecting land. Unlike someone above believes, you can fight to change laws.

This would not be hard at all since the media coverage is already there. Here's how you do it:

Call your local elections board and find out how many signatures (*by law EVERY state must allow this) it take on a petition to get something on the ballot.

Also, make sure you know the wording needed, or after you turn it in they may reject it for terminology forcing you to start all over again.

Then you ask if anyone has filed the necessary paperwork (if needed yet) if so then you find them and sign the petition.

OR you call the Dems. or GOP or both headquarters in your area to see if either knows of a petition going around and if so how to sign.

You work to get the needed signatures, turn it into the elections board and get it on the ballot.

Now if someone is losing their house and you have jumped through the hoops, gotten the signatures and it's on the next ballot, you have a justifiable reason to get a cease and desist order preventing the loss of land until the vote.

You can do this on local or state level.

It sounds much harder than it is.

*.... in order for a territory to become a state, one of the major requirements in their state constitutions is a way for people to be able to put laws on the ballot..... I.E. petitions. so every state may have slightly different petition requirements but in every state you can by law petition to get a law made.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 03:41 AM   #26 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
So the Supreme Court can effectively reverse its previsous decisions?

Mr Mephisto
I don't agree that it's easier to get an amendment passed than for the supreme court to reverse it's previous standpoint. For the most recent example that I'm aware of, reference:

Bowers v. Hardwick 478 U.S. 186 (1986) overturned in Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 04:55 AM   #27 (permalink)
I am Winter Born
 
Pragma's Avatar
 
Location: Alexandria, VA
I agree with smooth. It's easy for SCOTUS to overturn decisions, once they're given a similar case. They don't (entirely) control which cases are brought to their attention, sometimes a case similiar might not make it all of the way up the appeals chain, but if they are presented with one, they can just go ahead and overturn the previous ruling.

I predict that will probably happen some time in the future with this ruling, as it's really a horrible decision. Yes, they're only upholding the local law, but the local law is crap and should be struck down.
Pragma is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 05:09 AM   #28 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pragma
I agree with smooth. It's easy for SCOTUS to overturn decisions, once they're given a similar case. They don't (entirely) control which cases are brought to their attention, sometimes a case similiar might not make it all of the way up the appeals chain, but if they are presented with one, they can just go ahead and overturn the previous ruling.

I predict that will probably happen some time in the future with this ruling, as it's really a horrible decision. Yes, they're only upholding the local law, but the local law is crap and should be struck down.
I think it will be overturned, but will take awhile. In the meantime I see people petitioning and protecting themselves.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 08:13 AM   #29 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
once again, i doubt seriously that the folk whose knickers are all in a twist about this ruling gave a damn about the exercize of this same eminent domain question when it was used over and over during the past 50 years or so by cities around the country to herd poorer folk around like cattle so that vital urban developments like convention centers could be built where once homes were. why? because the class position of most of the folk who are o so outraged by this ruling would enable them to imagine themselves being serviced by these convention centers, they think of them as a place they would like to go to, and do not think about the fact that many of them going to were built ontop of razed lower-income neighborhoods--classical case in point--yerba buena in san fransisco--
so one can only conclude that the destrcution of THOSE residences via eminent domain was and would now be just fine--but once it appears that the middle class itself can be effected by laws that previously had functioned to further its political and economic interests--o the horror.
on the argument that private property is sacrosanct is simple nonsense---what you are really saying is that YOUR proterty is sacrosanct--the property of folk LIKE YOU socially, economically--THAT is sacrosanct.

what's good for the goose is good for the gander indeed.


btw i think the action in weare is quite funny.
in that kind of har-de-har way that most such actions are.
but i dont think anything about it speaks to or legitimate the sanctimonious "outrage" above.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 10:04 AM   #30 (permalink)
pig
pigglet pigglet
 
pig's Avatar
 
Location: Locash
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
once again, i doubt seriously that the folk whose knickers are all in a twist about this ruling gave a damn about the exercize of this same eminent domain question when it was used over and over during the past 50 years or so by cities around the country to herd poorer folk around like cattle so that vital urban developments like convention centers could be built where once homes were.
While I agree with your point, I'm curious if these convention centers and the like are maintained by the local government for the public good, or are they private enterprises? I honestly don't know the answer to this question, and to me it's one of the more interesting parts of what I know about the ruling.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
pig is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 10:27 AM   #31 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pigglet
While I agree with your point, I'm curious if these convention centers and the like are maintained by the local government for the public good, or are they private enterprises? I honestly don't know the answer to this question, and to me it's one of the more interesting parts of what I know about the ruling.
I can't speak for other cities, but i know that minneapolis' convention center is run by the city, and is actually the only entity run by the city to make money.
filtherton is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 10:28 AM   #32 (permalink)
All important elusive independent swing voter...
 
jorgelito's Avatar
 
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
A good example is Dodger Stadium in LA. 10,000-30,000 poor people were forced out of their homes to make way for the stadium. They were promised new housing that never materialized.
__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter
jorgelito is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 10:57 AM   #33 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by pigglet
While I agree with your point, I'm curious if these convention centers and the like are maintained by the local government for the public good, or are they private enterprises? I honestly don't know the answer to this question, and to me it's one of the more interesting parts of what I know about the ruling.
pigglet,
in the specific case of yerba buena, the center is run by a non-profit organization. That isn't always the case, however, and I understand roachboy's point to be that in situations like that the "public good" speaks to a particular class level and people similarly situated.

the poor people swept out of the way to make room for the center aren't likely to ever enjoy it, have time to visit the center, or really be preoccupied about anything other than living day to day (not that they wouldn't necessarily enjoy a multicultural arts center--but when would they visit it and would its presentation be relevant to them; it might only become relevant to them at the expense of relevancy to the citizens it's aimed at caputuring...after all, eminent domain is and always has been about revenue)


but in the main, we might consider that the meme put out by conservatives over the past decades has been that privitization is and always will be necessarily better than government. That the free market is an "good" end in and of itself, rather than a means to achieve freedom for the people within the market.

So then we have the interesting dilemma that when these projects are undertaken, they are constructed by private companies for corporate gain and often run by private companies for profit--or "non" profit as the case may be. But the idea that a portion of the downtown area be bracketed off for public consumption at no cost is pretty repugnant to the main conservative view--they would much rather private interests become involved and develop that space into a strip mall or business renovation or anything that will generate revenue (perhaps if I studied the context of this art center more I might find whether the proposal anticipates revenue generation from the visitors to the surrounding businesses or if the poverty housing units were eyesores and devalued the surrounding areas).

Well, from my understanding, eminent domain has lotsa times been used for business interests and seldom for non-profit construction. Yet, roachboy's point doesn't hinge on that, I think. We might question why the low-income housing can't be understood as a "public good." and this ties to the processes of hegemony we both brought to the table in an earlier discussion...


so here conservatives are faced with a gnarly proposition...they have to deal with a glaring inconsistency in the internal coherence of their politics: how do they resolve the fact that in order to keep their personal property they need the government's protection to shield them from corporate interests, yet this same government, by its nature and increasing presence in their lives, violates their personal liberties.

Ordinarily this wouldn't be so problematic. Roachboy already outlined in what some are referring to as his "racist" post the release valve that is traditionally utilized: us vs. them. but in this case, the "us" and the "them" are problematized by the fact that the middle class are not provided with an "us" to align with...they are surrounded by "thems"--the people they would ordinarily thrust on their asses for development, the elites who want to strip them of their property, the judicial system that can't seem to follow what they believed to be the tenents of the Constitution in regards to individual liberty.

So then they have to make sense of their position in the world, what they are being hit with. All humans do this, in my opinion, I'm not flaming conservative ideology or particular peoples--it just doesn't really help in this particular situation and so I'm speaking about it in this particular thread. As they cast about for an appropriate "them" we get characters who perform as though they are an "us" (Bush & Co., which by all standards is anything but an "us" to most people milling around the United States) telling the people to calm down...we have identified the "them." Luckily, the threat is external...we just need to unify...go to war...kill them...save us...track them down...we are secure...we are safe...we can overcome adversity as long as we are the same...think the same...act the same...beieve the same...we do believe the same...we are great...our nation is tops...our ideals are tops...never regret...stay the course...keep the resolve...do not question...do not fear...bush is here...

and you'll this stuff replicated throughout the years to come...and you'll notice it was replicated throughout our history. If Bush's speechwriters were better at their jobs, or if they had more confidence in their listeners' historical knowledge, they would be able to incite a hella lot more jingoism. But perhaps they have accurately judged the apathy of many people and don't really need to incite the kind of following past leaders have obtained.

so here in this case, we have a crack in the institution of capitalism, and some people are going to put their fingernail in it and probe the crack, pry it open, peer into it, see what's behind that curtain...

how do the people make sense of their context? why can't they be capitalist, why not own their land and lease it out, are they not part of the owning class? but they certainly are not part of the non-owning class, right? caught in some no-man's land...a very precarious situation for the working-class conservative just trying to raise a family and live his life...
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 12:14 PM   #34 (permalink)
Like John Goodman, but not.
 
Journeyman's Avatar
 
Location: SFBA, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
Bowers v. Hardwick 478 U.S. 186 (1986) overturned in Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Yes but there's also wider gaps between overtures (is that the right word?): Plessy v Ferguson in 1892 and Brown v Board of Education in 1954.

Of course with two possible imminent replacements on the SCOTUS now, this is liable to be quickly overturned if someone (with legal funding) does end up getting their property siezed in such a manner.
Journeyman is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 08:53 PM   #35 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
Well, from my understanding, eminent domain has lotsa times been used for business interests and seldom for non-profit construction.
I would consider most highways non-profit. I'd also wonder if Clinton's end-of-term seizure of a great deal of western land wouldn't be considered non-profit. The question is whether it fits the definition of "eminent domain."



Quote:
So then they have to make sense of their position in the world, what they are being hit with. All humans do this, in my opinion, I'm not flaming conservative ideology or particular peoples--it just doesn't really help in this particular situation and so I'm speaking about it in this particular thread. As they cast about for an appropriate "them" we get characters who perform as though they are an "us" (Bush & Co., which by all standards is anything but an "us" to most people milling around the United States) telling the people to calm down...we have identified the "them." Luckily, the threat is external...we just need to unify...go to war...kill them...save us...track them down...we are secure...we are safe...we can overcome adversity as long as we are the same...think the same...act the same...beieve the same...we do believe the same...we are great...our nation is tops...our ideals are tops...never regret...stay the course...keep the resolve...do not question...do not fear...bush is here...

and you'll this stuff replicated throughout the years to come...and you'll notice it was replicated throughout our history. If Bush's speechwriters were better at their jobs, or if they had more confidence in their listeners' historical knowledge, they would be able to incite a hella lot more jingoism. But perhaps they have accurately judged the apathy of many people and don't really need to incite the kind of following past leaders have obtained.
So the recent eminent domain decision is Bush's fault? That's quite a stretch.
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 09:04 PM   #36 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Journeyman
Yes but there's also wider gaps between overtures (is that the right word?): Plessy v Ferguson in 1892 and Brown v Board of Education in 1954.

Of course with two possible imminent replacements on the SCOTUS now, this is liable to be quickly overturned if someone (with legal funding) does end up getting their property siezed in such a manner.
O'Conner was VERY much against this ruling and wrote a scathing disenting opinion.

At best her replacement will do the same.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 06:45 AM   #37 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: Massachusetts
I actually don't see this being overturned anytime soon. Most of the cases cited above (Bowers, Plessy v. Ferguson, etc.) deal with hot button social issues. As much as the current takings jurisprudence is wrong, it will only affect only a few people on a limited basis. There won't be enough of a catalyst to effect the change.
RusCrimson is offline  
 

Tags
application, build, ceo, demolish, files, freestar, home, hotel, justice, media, scotus

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:05 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52