Eminent-domain strikes again, I dare you to defend it. - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

seretogis · 06-23-2005, 10:08 AM

Bumping this thread due to the 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court essentially supporting using eminent-domain to benefit private companies.

LINKY

Quote:

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Jun 23, 12:07 PM (ET)
By HOPE YEN

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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 Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for 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.

The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Still pending at the high court are cases dealing with the constitutionality of government Ten Commandments displays and the liability of Internet file-sharing services for clients' illegal swapping of copyrighted songs and movies. The Supreme Court next meets on Monday.

Writing for the court's majority in Thursday's ruling, 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.

"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," he said.

O'Connor, who has often been a key swing vote at the court, issued a stinging dissent, arguing that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

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

Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, a former mayor and city council member who voted in favor of eminent domain, said the decision "means a lot for New London's future."

"I am just so pleased to know that what we did was right," he said. "We can go ahead with development now."

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

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

Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub.

More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs. Last month, the Pentagon also announced plans to close the U.S. Naval Submarine Base, one of the city's largest employers, which would eliminate thousands of jobs.

The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.

City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

Thomas filed a separate opinion to argue that seizing homes for private development, even with "just compensation," is unconstitutional.

"The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful," Thomas wrote. "So-called 'urban renewal' programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted."

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

pan6467 · 06-23-2005, 10:52 AM

All I have to say is that this is not a left or right issue to say only the left does this or only the right..... well it's bullpucky. Both sides do it equally well.

The laws are there, if you don't like them vote to change them. Until then enjoy the drive on your roads, the product that comes to your area by rail, your community parks, the utilities that light, heat, give you cable and water your house.

Is it unfair? Yes.

But as the Right loves to point out so often on these boards life is unfair.

(By the way I'm on the center-left and I love to play golf.)

seretogis · 06-23-2005, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

The laws are there, if you don't like them vote to change them. Until then enjoy the drive on your roads, the product that comes to your area by rail, your community parks, the utilities that light, heat, give you cable and water your house.

Is it unfair? Yes.

But as the Right loves to point out so often on these boards life is unfair.

This isn't about roads or utilities -- this is about abusing a law (meant purely for necessities like the previously mentioned) and using it to benefit a private company. As pro-business as I am, golf courses and office buildings are NOT necessities for the "public good" and using eminent domain in order to get cheap land for your buddy the contractor is beyond wrong. I really don't understand how some people can defend this abuse of power by the government and scream and shout about ANWR oil-drilling.

pan6467 · 06-23-2005, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

This isn't about roads or utilities -- this is about abusing a law (meant purely for necessities like the previously mentioned) and using it to benefit a private company. As pro-business as I am, golf courses and office buildings are NOT necessities for the "public good" and using eminent domain in order to get cheap land for your buddy the contractor is beyond wrong. I really don't understand how some people can defend this abuse of power by the government and scream and shout about ANWR oil-drilling.

I totally agree it is wrong, but the laws obviously allow it. It's not a right or left issue, and in all honesty I believe this could start a ground swell of people wanting to change the laws. The laws obviously do not distinguish one form of business as ok and another as not ok from doing this. (IF they did I am sure the right would have fits saying how could gov't decide which business has what rights). This is just an example of an abuse of laws.

If you don't believe this has been going on for years upon years then look up how GM, Ford, Chrysler, the Steel industry and so on got their properties. Look up how the area malls 25-30 years ago got their malls.

My father did land surveys on the weekends and as a kid I grew up being his rodsman and I saw this alot. Wendy's headquarters in Dublin Ohio was "purchased" this way.

As for ANWR..... I may not like it but Bush won. His actions speak for themselves and so did his approval ratings. I am but me and all I can do is my best, screaming and complaining get me nowhere, organizing and speaking out and working to change laws gives me more of a chance to change the laws.

Mantus · 06-23-2005, 11:38 AM

Several people stated: it's okay to take people's land for highways, roads and powerlines but not a recreation center. How does one draw that line?

j8ear · 06-23-2005, 11:54 AM

I disagree Pan. This is not "a law," per se, Eminent Domain and the taking of property with just compensation for the PUBLIC use...is actually a constitutional ammendment, the fifth to be exact. Here is the text:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Law or consitutional restriction or whatever. You're right it needs to change. And so does the Supreme Courts interpretive abilities.

This decision is complete and utter destruction of this principle, and broadens the definition of public use to include taking property to give to rich developers who financed my last campaign so they will also finance my re-election.

Disgusting.

No one is safe or secure in their homes, anyone's property can be siezed, to help finance any politicians next re-election.

Your right though this isn't a left or right issue. Essentially, every politician interested in their own survival and eliminating any accountability is on the left. Even those who claim to be on the right. They're all sacks of shit imho.

Don't even get me started on researching what a complete mockery of "Just Compensation" has been basterized to mean as far as a government body is concerned. Pennies on the dollar!

The left has started this consolidation of power...and the people have bought it hook line and sinker. The new deal, the great society, the compassion industry, affirmative action, roe v wade, ad infinitum. All complete and utter failures. Yet we keep on plugging away...as if the garbage who created this nonsense can or even will fix it?

-bear

Elphaba · 06-23-2005, 12:08 PM

Writing for the court's majority in Thursday's ruling, 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.

What appears to missing in this discussion is *how* the supreme's came to this decision. I completely agree with their finding that this is a state decision, not a federal one.

roachboy · 06-23-2005, 12:23 PM

what i find funny in this is that i doubt any of you who are complaining about this ruling were terribly concerned when the same logic exactly was employed by city after city throughout the united states to herd the poor from area to area in the name of "beautification" or "urban renewal"--no no--convention centers and vital highway access routes, office buildings and sports complexes all have at one time ro another been put up on top of older residential neighborhoods that were more often than not, simply confiscated using precisely this logic.

this ruling is that it appears to simply roll the purview of this version of eminent domain from the poor--whose dispossession you doubtless have no problem with as such--to the middle class--that is to you, to people like you...using the same logic as before--"improvement" of tax base = "improvement" of everything.

in fact, i am surprised that this kind of thing is not cheered by the right, following the logic of their ideology of capitalism--the whole "raising all boats" pseudo-logic. just goes to show that the destruction visited by capitalism is just dandy for conservatives so long as they can pretend that it will always effect other people.

to be clearer about what i am saying, here is an article from today's ny times on the decision:

Quote:

Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Property for Development
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, June 23 - The Supreme Court ruled today, in a deeply emotional case weighing the rights of property owners and the good of the community, that local governments can sometimes seize homes and businesses and turn them over to private developers.

In a case with nationwide implications, the court ruled, 5 to 4, against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who have resisted the city's plans to demolish their working-class homes near the Thames River to make way for an office building, riverfront hotel and other commercial activities.

The majority held that, just as government has the constitutional power of eminent domain to acquire private property to clear slums or to build roads, bridges, airports and other facilities to benefit the public, it can sometimes do so for private developers if the latters' projects also serve a public good.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized." The court's ruling is certain to be studied from coast to coast, since similar conflicts between owners of homes and small businesses and development-minded officials have arisen in other locales.

Justice Stevens noted that city officials had been addressing New London's sagging economic fortunes for years, and he said their decisions on how best to cope with them were entitled to wide deference.

Of course, he wrote, the city would be barred from taking one's property and transferring it to another private owner strictly for the latter's benefit. But in this instance, he said, the city is promoting a variety of commercial, residential and recreational land uses "with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts" and bring economic benefits to the general community.

In a bitter dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority had created an ominous precedent. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

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

"As for the victims," Justice O'Connor went on, "the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."

Justice Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Justice O'Connor's fellow dissenters were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Justice Stevens noted that the homes in question could not be considered a slum area, and that indeed some of the people have lived in their homes for decades. Rather, he said, the properties "were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area."

"In affirming the city's authority to take petitioners' properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation," Justice Stevens wrote, adding that local governments have the authority to refine their condemnation policies, and curb them if they wish.

The case is Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108. Susette Kelo is one of the property owners who petitioned the courts to block the condemnation of their homes in the Fort Trumbull area of New London.

"She has made extensive improvements to her house, which she prizes for its water view," Justice Stevens noted. Another petitioner, Wilhelmina Dery, "was born in her Fort Trumbull house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life," the justice wrote. "Her husband, Charles (also a petitioner), has lived in the house since they married some 60 years ago."

Some of the affected homeowners were dismayed. "It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," Bill Von Winkle said in an interview with The Associated Press. He said he would not leave even if he sees the bulldozers coming.

Scott Bullock, a lawyer for the Institute of Justice, which represented the families, was bitterly disappointed. "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today," he said in an A.P. interview. "Our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."

But New London officials said the overall good that will come from private development in the Fort Trumbull area outweighs the rights of the individual homeowners. "We're pleased," Edward O'Connell, attorney for the New London Development Corporation, told The A.P.

The seven private property owners at the center of the New London case won an order in New London Superior Court blocking the takeover of their homes, but the Connecticut Supreme Court overruled the lower court, holding that the proposed seizures were lawful under the state's municipal-development law.

When the case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on Feb. 22, Mr. Bullock maintained - unsuccessfully, as it turned out - that fostering private economic development is not a legitimate "public" use, despite incidental public benefits like a better tax base.

But Wesley W. Horton, a Hartford lawyer who represented New London before the justices, contended that economic development was indeed an appropriate public use, and that the court should not overrule the judgment of local officials.

Justice Stevens and the rest of the majority agreed. "The disposition of this case, therefore, turns on the question whether the city's development plan serves a 'public purpose,' " he wrote. "Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field."

The Cato Institute, a nonpartisan public policy research foundation that describes itself as dedicated to "traditional American principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace," was deeply disappointed. "With today's decision, no one's property is safe," said Roger Pilon, director of Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/po...rtner=homepage

notice the emphasis placed on the basic argument "but our house is not ugly" as if it was universally agreed previously that every structure occupied by poor folk was a priori ugly, and those occupied by the middle class a priori not.

more broadly,
i have never really understood conservative objections to eminent domain in general--i mean apart from this case--the class dimension of it notwithstanding--i dont see the basis for it, beyond a kind of self-defeating individualistic worldview, one that would enable individuals to imagine that, say, the value of their property was not contingent on infrastructure, on services, etc.---i have assumed from the outset that this fight over eminent domain was in fact part of the conservative assault on the whole idea of the public as over against the private.

eminent domain is something that is pretty difficult to defend in positive ways, frankly--partly because it seems pretty straightforward in that there should be some kind of overriding of individual property rights in the interest of the public (infrastructure, etc.)--i have no problem with that, but it is not something that one can really cheer about. perverse stuff, all this.

j8ear · 06-23-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Writing for the court's majority in Thursday's ruling, 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.

What appears to missing in this discussion is *how* the supreme's came to this decision. I completely agree with their finding that this is a state decision, not a federal one.

Incorrect kind contributor. This was not an affirmation in any way of "states rights."

This is a federal constitutional issue NOT available for states to decide. The Supreme's decided that the emiment domain doctrine allows for the taking of private land for what ever that government can dream up as a public use. Including influence peddling developers who will build high dollar condos which generate more tax revenue then the small middle class neighborhood homes.

This was an expansion and consolidation of government powers, and an errosion of ordinary citizens rights. Nothing more.

-bear

roachboy · 06-23-2005, 01:20 PM

in the matter of property ownership, how exactly does this distinction "ordinary citizen" vs. "government" work if the value of the sacred property is a function of the (public) infrastructure around it, of the patterns of investment that situate it--which are more often than not worked out in co-ordination with municipalities, etc.
if you sell your sacred property, you would rely on the workings of markets which are created and hedged around at every step by legal strictures, all of which are public. the currency that you would accrue is a social phenomenon.
the relation of you as buyer to your mortgage is a highly circumscribed one, legally.
the deed that gives you title is a legal document.
the idea of private property is a legal construction.
every single step of every single aspect of this relation entails a very very close interaction between the private citizen (also a legal term) and the state....so i don't see how you can make a strict separation between the two and be coherent in any way. but maybe you can explain it?

this separation does not seem to me to involve an analytic viewpoint in any way--these seem straight political/ideological claims.

pan6467 · 06-23-2005, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

Incorrect kind contributor. This was not an affirmation in any way of "states rights."

This is a federal constitutional issue NOT available for states to decide. The Supreme's decided that the emiment domain doctrine allows for the taking of private land for what ever that government can dream up as a public use. Including influence peddling developers who will build high dollar condos which generate more tax revenue then the small middle class neighborhood homes.

This was an expansion and consolidation of government powers, and an errosion of ordinary citizens rights. Nothing more.

-bear

I think Elphaba had an excellent post.

It appears that when a justice says "it's a community's right and the state can change the laws" the Right still claim violation and that it's BS Liberalism. But yet when the judge claims something as federal they yell again "liberalism".

I also think if you truly believe this is done in the name of tax revenue.... then maybe you would be best served to find ways to hike up the tax base.....

j8ear · 06-23-2005, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I think Elphaba had an excellent post.

It appears that when a justice says "it's a community's right and the state can change the laws" the Right still claim violation and that it's BS Liberalism. But yet when the judge claims something as federal they yell again "liberalism".

I also think if you truly believe this is done in the name of tax revenue.... then maybe you would be best served to find ways to hike up the tax base.....

You shouldn't count me in with that branch of the right. I am quite consistent in this regard. There are several clearly enumerated federal areas of concern. This is one of them, asa outlined in the fifth ammendment

Read the ninth and tenth ammendments, for additional guidance.

Of course it is the commerce clause, that has truly allowed for the erosion of state rights and the ever expanding realm of federal jurisdiction. This in addition to a common theme from the Supreme Court referred to as compelling interest. Which, imho, is a load of BS. We'll tell you what is a compelling interest through the ballot box.

Finally, I "believe" as you put it, that this property seivure was based on tax revenue because that's what the town of New London argue they were doing it for.

I agree that raising taxes would also have solved the problem...but hey, this way the politicians will still get re-elected, because only insignificant, inconsequential pions are displaced, and the heavy hitting influencial donors, developers and investors are not only wealthier, but your revenues are up and your re-election committees are better funded. Sounds like a win-win. Unless your a blue collar or middle class drone.

Your right on the money Pan. This isn't a left or right issue. However this is also not states right issue.

I wonder how it would be possible for a state government to restrict a local governments application of a permissable constitutional privledge?

You really think that poster had an excellent at bat? A tiny sampling of a rather ominous decision resulting in an inaccurate conclusion of the entire opinion.

-bear

Elphaba · 06-23-2005, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

I wonder how it would be possible for a state government to restrict a local governments application of a permissable constitutional privledge?

You really think that poster had an excellent at bat? A tiny sampling of a rather ominous decision resulting in an inaccurate conclusion of the entire opinion.

-bear

If I erred in my conclusion, I appear to be in good company.

Time magazine went into some detail about this particular case two or three issues back. My copy has long since gone into the trash, but I'll try to find something online. If I recall, the issue wasn't specifically about increasing the tax base, but to fulfill a promise made to support a large influx of employees.

Perhaps, while I do that, you can clarify your position by providing links to your claims?

scout · 06-23-2005, 04:15 PM

Somehow I figured this argument would go the exact opposite that what it currently is. I figured the "left leaners" [not meant in a bad way] would oppose this decision since it in effect gives the rich with a bit of money to spend a constitutional go-ahead to take the poor man's land all in the name of more government and the "right-wing" [again, not meant in a bad way] to be calling this a landmark decision for big business.
I sure missed it. I guess big government is ok as long as it's taking land to make a bigger tax base? Would it still be ok the government took these people's land if they was going to put a church there? I think all you "lefties" [again, not meant in a bad way} would be screaming bloody murder about how the religious "righties" [not meant in a bad way...] was taking over the world.

My opinion of this ruling is that it sucks! It just proves that in reality "we the people" own nothing and the government owns it all and we merely pay rent in the form of taxes. Republicans get elected promising smaller government and less bullshit and in reality all we get is more of the same shit just rolled up in a different wrapper. Don't get your panties in a bunch, I realize this had nothing to do with the elected parties I'm just frustrated and venting a bit.

ShaniFaye · 06-23-2005, 04:25 PM

this was our Attorney General's response to the ruling.

Quote:

Will Ruling Affect Ga. Homeowners?
Reported By: Jennifer Leslie
Web Editor: Manav Tanneeru
Last Modified: 6/23/2005 6:52:33 PM

Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker said Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on private property rights will not affect state homeowners because of protections in the state constitution.

Baker, in a statement released to media, said the Georgia Constitution and more than 100 years of state court precedent prevent condemnation for private purposes.

"Fortunately for Georgians, our state constitution and state judiciary have consistently held that condemnation for private purposes is not acceptable under state law, a position that will be unaffected by today’s federal court ruling," Baker wrote.

“Georgia will remain one of the few states in the nation where a homeowner will not lose the family home or farm to make way for a private development boondoggle," the statement read.

Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue attacked the ruling that expands the power of states, counties and cities to seize people's homes and businesses through a practice known as eminent domain.

“Being legal doesn't make it right,” Perdue said. “"I've always been a strict constructionist when it came to eminent domain. It's an awesome power that ought to be used very, very carefully."

The Supreme Court's ruling deals with a case in Connecticut where the city of New London planned to demolish homes in a working class neighborhood to make way for a hotel and health club.

While state and local governments have long been able to take private land for public purposes --such as building schools and roads -- this ruling allows governments to buy land at market value and hand it over to a private developer without the original owner's consent.

"For city officials, the last thing they want to do is condemn someone's house. But it can be a tool to protect neighborhoods in dealing with absentee owners,” said Amy Henderson, a public information manager with the Georgia Municipal Association. “This ruling affirms that cities have the power to use condemnation in a careful way with the community in mind.”

"I'm as surprised as most people are on the street,” said State Sen. Dan Moody (R-Alpharetta), who co-sponsored a bill introduced this year that would prohibit governments from seizing private property as a way to increase the tax base or for economic development.

He expects that bill and perhaps other similar ones to take priority when the legislature meets again next year.

"The ruling we saw has most people disappointed, and I think it's up to us to find ways to strengthen those property rights rules rather than weaken them,” Moody said.

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_art...?storyid=65141

j8ear · 06-23-2005, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Perhaps, while I do that, you can clarify your position by providing links to your claims?

You want links to my opinions? You want to provide links to yours? From Time magazine? The decision was published today. How could Time have had any insight into what this decision does three week ago.

I'll tell you what...

As soon as the opinion is made available in full here:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/opinions.html

You can read it for yourself.

The "Syllabus" is particularly informative. So is O'Connors dissent.

-bear

j8ear · 06-23-2005, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I appear to be in good company.

Since I'm in a jovial non-confromtational mood...I'll, with all sincerity, whole heartedly agree that Pan is definately good company.

Peace bro...or bro and sis...or....well...

Just Peace

-bear

pan6467 · 06-23-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

Since I'm in a jovial non-confromtational mood...I'll, with all sincerity, whole heartedly agree that Pan is definately good company.

Peace bro...or bro and sis...or....well...

Just Peace

-bear

I'm a bro.... last time I went pee I was..... and thanks Elphaba and J8 for the compliment.

And let me just say, when I say right I am usually focussing on Neo-Cons like Limbaughs and the Bush hardliners. There are many great moderates that I truly respect.

Much like when someone says left, and are focussing on the more extreme. It's easier to just type.

Just want to clarify.

Shani..... looks like you live in the right state.

scout · 06-23-2005, 06:02 PM

I need to move to Georgia. I just wish it wasn't so blasted hot there in the summer.

pan6467 · 06-23-2005, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

Somehow I figured this argument would go the exact opposite that what it currently is. I figured the "left leaners" [not meant in a bad way] would oppose this decision since it in effect gives the rich with a bit of money to spend a constitutional go-ahead to take the poor man's land all in the name of more government and the "right-wing" [again, not meant in a bad way] to be calling this a landmark decision for big business.
I sure missed it. I guess big government is ok as long as it's taking land to make a bigger tax base? Would it still be ok the government took these people's land if they was going to put a church there? I think all you "lefties" [again, not meant in a bad way} would be screaming bloody murder about how the religious "righties" [not meant in a bad way...] was taking over the world.

My opinion of this ruling is that it sucks! It just proves that in reality "we the people" own nothing and the government owns it all and we merely pay rent in the form of taxes. Republicans get elected promising smaller government and less bullshit and in reality all we get is more of the same shit just rolled up in a different wrapper. Don't get your panties in a bunch, I realize this had nothing to do with the elected parties I'm just frustrated and venting a bit.

Yes it does suck, but it is the law. As far as do you own it...... they do have to pay fair market value, and they usually go by the appraised value that the taxes you pay on the land is.

As I have stated I worked with my dad as his rodsman growing up and I know for a fact, a vast majority of people like it when they have eminent domain because they either got more for the property than they would have or it increased the value of surrounding land.

I do think the people need to make a rising and start getting laws to make sure this is somehow controlled, or we could end up in trouble.

The ruling was a wake up call that we need to check local and state laws and adjust them.

j8ear · 06-23-2005, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I'm a bro.... last time I went pee I was..... and thanks Elphaba and J8 for the compliment.

I KNOW you are...I can tell by your avatar

It's the other bro/sis...that im not sure of. Erring on the side of caution, covering all my bases...dotting my tee's and crossing my eye's...

You know just generally trying to lighten the mood.

Oh how I'm sooooooo good at ~that~

-bear

Hardknock · 06-23-2005, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

this was our Attorney General's response to the ruling.

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_art...?storyid=65141

I hope your attorney general knows that federal law outranks any state law thats on the books.

pan6467 · 06-23-2005, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

I hope your attorney general knows that federal law outranks any state law thats on the books.

Depends on exactly how the case came about. If it was someone fighting a law that said their city was allowed to do this then the opposite would be true.... a law that states private land cannot be emminent domained for private gain (which I believe Elphaba showed at least 1 justice claimed).

I can't see even SC saying that a local law in a case like this would be illegal and that the COnstitution allows private developers to take land. From what I gather it just upheld a local law.

roachboy · 06-24-2005, 01:22 PM

this kind of ruling makes me revert to marxist form:

the legal framework within which property relations works is nothing more or less than the legal framework of class warfare. what is interesting in this is that the petit bourgeois--who have been systematically invited through the distortions of conservative ideology to pretend that their interests are identical with those of the economic elite, for which the republican party, now as always, carries--um---water--now find that their interests are not identical with those of the economic elite.

what a shock.

it seems to me that the "little guy vs. the System" line that has been central to the debate in this thread is, in the main, incoherent as a way to understand what is going on here.

think about it: the claim that private enterprise can provide services that previously the state provided better and more efficiently--a claim central to the fantasyland that conservatives live in, but one that has been falsified over and over (think british rail or think the water supply problems in chile for example)--leads in the longer run to a blurring of the line between private and public functions.

as an argument, the above appears not to be a problem for the right, it seems--but now, like i said, the petit bourgeois--you know, the small business types, the small landholders---find themselves as a result of this ruling basically cast back into the wrong side of the class system.

that this line of conservative argument does not mesh at all with the obsession with private property rights is no surprise.

it is not that i support the ruling--i dont really care about it one way or another--but what i find surprising is the handwringing on the part of conservatives over it.

smooth · 06-24-2005, 01:48 PM

Roachboy,

what I find most interesting is how these responses will play out...
If I understand the concept of hegemony correctly, then I would be accurate to state that the dominant ideology wouldn't allow the people negatively affected by this ruling to question the class structure and law, as an apparatus reaffirming the class structure, but rather to seek an explanation that is conceivable within the social context we are operating within.

so how will they [those negatively affected by this ruling] make sense of the ruling?
one plausible way seems to be blaming the activist judges. or the overreach of the federal government or judiciary.

how this is handled and rationalized is most interesting to me...

Lebell · 06-24-2005, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

how this is handled and rationalized is most interesting to me...

Pardon, but I don't find this conducive to any discussion.

Indeed, it is clear that you too have made up your mind and have already summarily dismissed any world view that does not agree with yours.

How is this any different from what you are decrying?

j8ear · 06-24-2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Depends on exactly how the case came about. If it was someone fighting a law that said their city was allowed to do this then the opposite would be true.... a law that states private land cannot be emminent domained for private gain (which I believe Elphaba showed at least 1 justice claimed).

I can't see even SC saying that a local law in a case like this would be illegal and that the COnstitution allows private developers to take land. From what I gather it just upheld a local law.

I read the opinion to expand on an existing constitutional priveledge. Which in effect confirmed an existing local law, as opposed to striking it down.

I to am stumped.

I see it as perfectly reasonable for any locality, in Georgia for example, to challenge ANY Georgia State Constitutional provision that restricts this federal constitutionally permitted privledge.

For example, the first ammendment gaurantees a right to free speech, with clearly and narrowly defined exceptions...does this then mean that states can restrict speech further? In essense restrict or reduce this constitutional provision? If so how? Why?

I might have erred in ~my~ interpretation of this, as many of the pundits, talking heads and elites have asserted just that.

Baffled

That is why I am but a constitutional sophomore.

-bear

smooth · 06-24-2005, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Pardon, but I don't find this conducive to any discussion.

Indeed, it is clear that you too have made up your mind and have already summarily dismissed any world view that does not agree with yours.

How is this any different from what you are decrying?

You've, as usual, read a lot of shit into what I wrote.
Wondering how people are going to make sense of this demonstration of the disconnect between how the law actually operates when it's supposed to guarantee private rights in the United States doesn't "decry" anything and I didn't dismiss anything or anyone in my comments.

But don't worry about it, my comments were directed at roachboy in order to elicit his opinion about this subject. I don't visit this board enough to care what you have to say about my post or your expressed inablity to understand what I wrote.

Ustwo · 06-24-2005, 06:31 PM

Ah my post returns from the dead.

Look at the judges who voted for this horrible abuse of power.

Guess what 'side' of the political fence they are on.

Fucking typical.

This is indefensible, un-American, and I would expect such rulings only from a fascist or communist nation.

This is the quintessential precedence of the government being superior to the citizens it serves.

The fact that this is allowed by LOCAL governments only makes it more abusable and horrific in nature.

As an American I am disgusted.

Lebell · 06-24-2005, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

You've, as usual, read a lot of shit into what I wrote.
Wondering how people are going to make sense of this demonstration of the disconnect between how the law actually operates when it's supposed to guarantee private rights in the United States doesn't "decry" anything and I didn't dismiss anything or anyone in my comments.

But don't worry about it, my comments were directed at roachboy in order to elicit his opinion about this subject. I don't visit this board enough to care what you have to say about my post or your expressed inablity to understand what I wrote.

Quite honestly, this post makes me sad. I thought we had moved beyond this.

martinguerre · 06-24-2005, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Pardon, but I don't find this conducive to any discussion.

Indeed, it is clear that you too have made up your mind and have already summarily dismissed any world view that does not agree with yours.

How is this any different from what you are decrying?

I don't really have any commentary to add specifically on property rights, but i think it's important to comment on this statement.

How is it not useful to a political discussion to note how rhetorics are constructed? Property rights, or any other idea, does not naturally have a framework in place to discuss it. In the west, we primarly have chosen to operate on an assumption of indivual rights to ownership as negotiated by law. This doesn't stike me as a particularly "natural" assumption...and i see no reason to treat it like an invented concept. This of course, does not mean it is without merit. It may be the best invented concept among many...though i happen to think otherwise.

So yes...i think it's entirely appropriate to see how these concepts are justified, explained, and constructed. That is the debate...

A pity you got flamed back on that response you gave, but to be honest...i think your dismissal was a bit quick.

roachboy · 06-24-2005, 10:18 PM

hegemony is about cultural domination: it is about controlling the terms of debate.
in the states, the hegemonic ideology is a variant of neoliberalism, whcih trickles down onto the heads of most of us in the form of an endless apology for capitalism in all its forms. contemporary conservative ideology is obviously part of this--but it is not identical with it. same goes for such ideology as there is in the democratic party that is not a simple duplicate of the republican.

from this follows the complete absurdity of the right casting the democrats as leftist--like the old saw goes, the us is a single party state with two right wings.

with a question like this ruling on eminent domain, the terms of debate are really pretty interesting--i think the incoherence of conservative ideology provides the folk who see their world through it no basis for criticizing the ruling--i could point out specific instances above, but i think they speak for themselves. the claims about "the government" assailing the right of individuals is at the very best a truncated way of seeing what is happening here.

in the main, i think smooth was right about the matter of responses to it having as much if not more symptomatic as logical interest.

Lebell · 06-25-2005, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

I don't really have any commentary to add specifically on property rights, but i think it's important to comment on this statement.

How is it not useful to a political discussion to note how rhetorics are constructed? Property rights, or any other idea, does not naturally have a framework in place to discuss it. In the west, we primarly have chosen to operate on an assumption of indivual rights to ownership as negotiated by law. This doesn't stike me as a particularly "natural" assumption...and i see no reason to treat it like an invented concept. This of course, does not mean it is without merit. It may be the best invented concept among many...though i happen to think otherwise.

So yes...i think it's entirely appropriate to see how these concepts are justified, explained, and constructed. That is the debate...

A pity you got flamed back on that response you gave, but to be honest...i think your dismissal was a bit quick.

I think it is indeed useful. But as I read and understand his post, he seem predisposed, nay scornfull, towards any framing that goes against what he considers to be the proper framing:

Quote:

one plausible way seems to be blaming the activist judges. or the overreach of the federal government or judiciary.

how this is handled and rationalized is most interesting to me...

At least, that is one way this passage could be understood.

But instead of taking a step back and looking at how else his post could have been reasonably intrepreted, he chose to flame.

The funny thing is, that I understood his post perfectly and could have agreed with most of it. How a debate is framed is half the battle in any contest, but without more clarification from him, I don't see why he got so huffy when I intrepreted some ambiguous lines of his in a particular way.

Mantus · 06-25-2005, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ah my post returns from the dead.

Look at the judges who voted for this horrible abuse of power.

Guess what 'side' of the political fence they are on.

Fucking typical.

Those three damn Commie Leftist Republicans!

pan6467 · 06-25-2005, 02:27 PM

You know the SC is damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they uphold a local law (which this case was about) the citizens cry "how could they, liberals"..... Screw that. It's and excuse to not have to go about getting the local law changed by petitions and ballot.

Easier to blame everything on those libs.... instead of saying "well, fuck I guess we need to get off our fat asses and change the laws."

Then the SC is damned if they overturn a local law..... "how dare those fucking Libs, tell us what laws we can or cannot have." Instead of getting off your fatasses, figuring out what part of the law is illegal and rewriting it.

Jesus, it's not brain surgery people. The SC basically tells you in their summations what problems exist and it's up to you to change them.

It's bullshit to say they are legislating.... all they do is look at the laws as how they are on the book and make a ruling. Don't like the ruling.... change the laws so that they abide by what is constitutional. Stop fucking taking the easy way out and blaming "those libs" or those "neo-cons".... Blaming is just laziness and wanting to hate someone instead of working to change things.

smooth · 06-25-2005, 04:19 PM

Thanks for the good convo, roachboy. It's been a pleasure interacting with you on this board and I learned things from you almost every time you posted. I wouldn't have remained around as long as I did if it weren't for my desire to read more of your insight. It's pretty obvious to anyone who chooses to see my past interactions that I don't come into the politics board anymore. Within the first day of me returning to see what was going on in a number of weeks, the little thorn in lebel's ass that he has about the things I write seem to have fully bloomed in his mind into a mushroom cloud that warrants censoring my participation. It appears I'm off to join Manx. Have a nice [virtual] life...

Quote:

Warning
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpo...55&postcount=68

You've been around for long enough to know that flaming anyone, especially staff members, is not acceptable behavior. You're a long-time member in good standing and you only have one warning on your record, so I'm marking this down as your second strike. We go by a three-strikes rule here, so this is the only one you're getting. We're trying to clean up the politics board and rude behavior from anyone is going to result in their being swept out the door as we clean.

...some of us have better things to do with ourselves than get bent out of shape when a person replies that they didn't post for your benefit or understanding.

If "cleaning" your board means purging the long-time, valuable contributors from your presence because they word things in ways you don't agree with then hopefully you will re-evaluate the ways in which you interpret what people write before you lose them all.

I didn't "flame" anyone until lebel, who relishes swithing from moderator ("staff") status to member status when it suits his purposes, took it upon himself to pick at my post based on what he assumes I mean whenever I post. If this were an isolated incident, I wouldn't have responded the way I did; every longtime member here knows that the kinds of commentary he makes towards particular members of this community and then jumps back in disbelief when someone responds in kind.

In fact, he still can't leave my comments alone...now claiming that they were "scornful". Of course, in a more rational world I would argue that saying I don't really care what you have to say about my comments isn't a "flame." Perhaps some people are reading antagonism into my comment that I wasn't interested in whether he understood what I wrote, which he now claims he understood and partially agreed with. That seems mildly interesting to me since his opening line to me was that he couldn't conceive how my comments were conducive to discussion.

matthew330 · 06-25-2005, 06:03 PM

If it's any consolation - your wife/g-friend has real nice tits.

roachboy · 06-26-2005, 11:24 AM

how is the above an acceptable post?

tecoyah · 06-26-2005, 12:05 PM

OK Guys and Gals....this really needs to stop.

We have many personalities in here....and each grates on the others in some way, but that does not mean we cannot have debate and discussion that actually makes everyone think.....about politics. Unfortunately this seems to have become a discussion of TFP politics rather than Government politics. If there is a problem with a MOD or any other staff member.....feel free to PM the Boss and it will be adrressed, but there is absolutely no reason to bash each other in public, short of trying to garner support from the rest of the community.
I'm not going to close this thread.....and I am going to request Smooth rethink leaving this board, as I would love to see everyone put in the effort to improve this place. I mean "Everyone" Staff, Members, Lurkers......Everyone.

tecoyah · 06-26-2005, 04:23 PM

We have commited to cleaning up this board. We would very much like the help of all who frequent politics in doing so. We have no intention of playing favorites in any way and will use a very simple formula to accomplish corrective actions in here from this point on, these steps are as follows:

If you make a statement that seems to staff as inflamatory, we will Remind you of what civility is.....in Yellow

We ask that others indulge in self control and refrain from rising to the bait, as it can take time to notice these things

If you outright insult, or degrade the person of another member, we will stop you from doing so again for a period of time, and tell EVERYONE exactly why and for how long.....in orange

If anyone goes beyond this....in any way, they will never have the opportunity to do so again.....Period

You see red....things have become very bad

We only hope these extreme measures can be temporary, and allow some of the immaturity to leech out of this board. If not.....our ranks are going to thin quite a bit. If these rules seem harsh or "Fascist" to you.....

Deal With It

06-23-2005, 10:52 AM	#42 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	All I have to say is that this is not a left or right issue to say only the left does this or only the right..... well it's bullpucky. Both sides do it equally well. The laws are there, if you don't like them vote to change them. Until then enjoy the drive on your roads, the product that comes to your area by rail, your community parks, the utilities that light, heat, give you cable and water your house. Is it unfair? Yes. But as the Right loves to point out so often on these boards life is unfair. (By the way I'm on the center-left and I love to play golf.) __________________ 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?"

06-23-2005, 11:54 AM	#46 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	I disagree Pan. This is not "a law," per se, Eminent Domain and the taking of property with just compensation for the PUBLIC use...is actually a constitutional ammendment, the fifth to be exact. Here is the text: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Law or consitutional restriction or whatever. You're right it needs to change. And so does the Supreme Courts interpretive abilities. This decision is complete and utter destruction of this principle, and broadens the definition of public use to include taking property to give to rich developers who financed my last campaign so they will also finance my re-election. Disgusting. No one is safe or secure in their homes, anyone's property can be siezed, to help finance any politicians next re-election. Your right though this isn't a left or right issue. Essentially, every politician interested in their own survival and eliminating any accountability is on the left. Even those who claim to be on the right. They're all sacks of shit imho. Don't even get me started on researching what a complete mockery of "Just Compensation" has been basterized to mean as far as a government body is concerned. Pennies on the dollar! The left has started this consolidation of power...and the people have bought it hook line and sinker. The new deal, the great society, the compassion industry, affirmative action, roe v wade, ad infinitum. All complete and utter failures. Yet we keep on plugging away...as if the garbage who created this nonsense can or even will fix it? -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

06-23-2005, 01:20 PM	#50 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	in the matter of property ownership, how exactly does this distinction "ordinary citizen" vs. "government" work if the value of the sacred property is a function of the (public) infrastructure around it, of the patterns of investment that situate it--which are more often than not worked out in co-ordination with municipalities, etc. if you sell your sacred property, you would rely on the workings of markets which are created and hedged around at every step by legal strictures, all of which are public. the currency that you would accrue is a social phenomenon. the relation of you as buyer to your mortgage is a highly circumscribed one, legally. the deed that gives you title is a legal document. the idea of private property is a legal construction. every single step of every single aspect of this relation entails a very very close interaction between the private citizen (also a legal term) and the state....so i don't see how you can make a strict separation between the two and be coherent in any way. but maybe you can explain it? this separation does not seem to me to involve an analytic viewpoint in any way--these seem straight political/ideological claims. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-24-2005, 01:22 PM	#64 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	this kind of ruling makes me revert to marxist form: the legal framework within which property relations works is nothing more or less than the legal framework of class warfare. what is interesting in this is that the petit bourgeois--who have been systematically invited through the distortions of conservative ideology to pretend that their interests are identical with those of the economic elite, for which the republican party, now as always, carries--um---water--now find that their interests are not identical with those of the economic elite. what a shock. it seems to me that the "little guy vs. the System" line that has been central to the debate in this thread is, in the main, incoherent as a way to understand what is going on here. think about it: the claim that private enterprise can provide services that previously the state provided better and more efficiently--a claim central to the fantasyland that conservatives live in, but one that has been falsified over and over (think british rail or think the water supply problems in chile for example)--leads in the longer run to a blurring of the line between private and public functions. as an argument, the above appears not to be a problem for the right, it seems--but now, like i said, the petit bourgeois--you know, the small business types, the small landholders---find themselves as a result of this ruling basically cast back into the wrong side of the class system. that this line of conservative argument does not mesh at all with the obsession with private property rights is no surprise. it is not that i support the ruling--i dont really care about it one way or another--but what i find surprising is the handwringing on the part of conservatives over it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-24-2005, 01:48 PM	#65 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Roachboy, what I find most interesting is how these responses will play out... If I understand the concept of hegemony correctly, then I would be accurate to state that the dominant ideology wouldn't allow the people negatively affected by this ruling to question the class structure and law, as an apparatus reaffirming the class structure, but rather to seek an explanation that is conceivable within the social context we are operating within. so how will they [those negatively affected by this ruling] make sense of the ruling? one plausible way seems to be blaming the activist judges. or the overreach of the federal government or judiciary. how this is handled and rationalized is most interesting to me... __________________ "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

06-23-2005, 11:38 AM	#45 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	Several people stated: it's okay to take people's land for highways, roads and powerlines but not a recreation center. How does one draw that line?

06-23-2005, 12:08 PM	#47 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Writing for the court's majority in Thursday's ruling, 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. What appears to missing in this discussion is how the supreme's came to this decision. I completely agree with their finding that this is a state decision, not a federal one.

06-23-2005, 04:15 PM	#54 (permalink)
scout Psycho	Somehow I figured this argument would go the exact opposite that what it currently is. I figured the "left leaners" [not meant in a bad way] would oppose this decision since it in effect gives the rich with a bit of money to spend a constitutional go-ahead to take the poor man's land all in the name of more government and the "right-wing" [again, not meant in a bad way] to be calling this a landmark decision for big business. I sure missed it. I guess big government is ok as long as it's taking land to make a bigger tax base? Would it still be ok the government took these people's land if they was going to put a church there? I think all you "lefties" [again, not meant in a bad way} would be screaming bloody murder about how the religious "righties" [not meant in a bad way...] was taking over the world. My opinion of this ruling is that it sucks! It just proves that in reality "we the people" own nothing and the government owns it all and we merely pay rent in the form of taxes. Republicans get elected promising smaller government and less bullshit and in reality all we get is more of the same shit just rolled up in a different wrapper. Don't get your panties in a bunch, I realize this had nothing to do with the elected parties I'm just frustrated and venting a bit.

06-23-2005, 06:02 PM	#59 (permalink)
scout Psycho	I need to move to Georgia. I just wish it wasn't so blasted hot there in the summer.

06-24-2005, 06:31 PM	#69 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Ah my post returns from the dead. Look at the judges who voted for this horrible abuse of power. Guess what 'side' of the political fence they are on. Fucking typical. This is indefensible, un-American, and I would expect such rulings only from a fascist or communist nation. This is the quintessential precedence of the government being superior to the citizens it serves. The fact that this is allowed by LOCAL governments only makes it more abusable and horrific in nature. As an American I am disgusted. __________________ 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. Last edited by Ustwo; 06-24-2005 at 06:35 PM..

06-24-2005, 10:18 PM	#72 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	hegemony is about cultural domination: it is about controlling the terms of debate. in the states, the hegemonic ideology is a variant of neoliberalism, whcih trickles down onto the heads of most of us in the form of an endless apology for capitalism in all its forms. contemporary conservative ideology is obviously part of this--but it is not identical with it. same goes for such ideology as there is in the democratic party that is not a simple duplicate of the republican. from this follows the complete absurdity of the right casting the democrats as leftist--like the old saw goes, the us is a single party state with two right wings. with a question like this ruling on eminent domain, the terms of debate are really pretty interesting--i think the incoherence of conservative ideology provides the folk who see their world through it no basis for criticizing the ruling--i could point out specific instances above, but i think they speak for themselves. the claims about "the government" assailing the right of individuals is at the very best a truncated way of seeing what is happening here. in the main, i think smooth was right about the matter of responses to it having as much if not more symptomatic as logical interest. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-25-2005, 02:27 PM	#75 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	You know the SC is damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they uphold a local law (which this case was about) the citizens cry "how could they, liberals"..... Screw that. It's and excuse to not have to go about getting the local law changed by petitions and ballot. Easier to blame everything on those libs.... instead of saying "well, fuck I guess we need to get off our fat asses and change the laws." Then the SC is damned if they overturn a local law..... "how dare those fucking Libs, tell us what laws we can or cannot have." Instead of getting off your fatasses, figuring out what part of the law is illegal and rewriting it. Jesus, it's not brain surgery people. The SC basically tells you in their summations what problems exist and it's up to you to change them. It's bullshit to say they are legislating.... all they do is look at the laws as how they are on the book and make a ruling. Don't like the ruling.... change the laws so that they abide by what is constitutional. Stop fucking taking the easy way out and blaming "those libs" or those "neo-cons".... Blaming is just laziness and wanting to hate someone instead of working to change things. __________________ 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?"

06-25-2005, 06:03 PM	#77 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	If it's any consolation - your wife/g-friend has real nice tits.

06-26-2005, 11:24 AM	#78 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	how is the above an acceptable post? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-26-2005, 12:05 PM	#79 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	OK Guys and Gals....this really needs to stop. We have many personalities in here....and each grates on the others in some way, but that does not mean we cannot have debate and discussion that actually makes everyone think.....about politics. Unfortunately this seems to have become a discussion of TFP politics rather than Government politics. If there is a problem with a MOD or any other staff member.....feel free to PM the Boss and it will be adrressed, but there is absolutely no reason to bash each other in public, short of trying to garner support from the rest of the community. I'm not going to close this thread.....and I am going to request Smooth rethink leaving this board, as I would love to see everyone put in the effort to improve this place. I mean "Everyone" Staff, Members, Lurkers......Everyone. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

06-26-2005, 04:23 PM	#80 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	We have commited to cleaning up this board. We would very much like the help of all who frequent politics in doing so. We have no intention of playing favorites in any way and will use a very simple formula to accomplish corrective actions in here from this point on, these steps are as follows: If you make a statement that seems to staff as inflamatory, we will Remind you of what civility is.....in Yellow We ask that others indulge in self control and refrain from rising to the bait, as it can take time to notice these things If you outright insult, or degrade the person of another member, we will stop you from doing so again for a period of time, and tell EVERYONE exactly why and for how long.....in orange If anyone goes beyond this....in any way, they will never have the opportunity to do so again.....Period You see red....things have become very bad We only hope these extreme measures can be temporary, and allow some of the immaturity to leech out of this board. If not.....our ranks are going to thin quite a bit. If these rules seem harsh or "Fascist" to you..... Deal With It __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha