High Court OKs Personal Property Seizures

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by reconeil You have to admit that it's-pretty-damn-sad when innocent American Citizens get treated almost as harshly authoritarian and omnipotently as guilty Chinese criminals do, by their Governments and Courts?

Still, and in fairness to The American System of Justice, at least here the families of those loosing their cases to The Big Brother States and State don't have to pay for the ammo needed for executing any Looser. Here, just paying Court Costs for being officially steam-rolled over by rulers and friends,...suffice.

"God Bless America".

Neil

We can, and must, handle "it".

[SuperScout]

Now with O'Conner heading back to the ranchin Arizona, the new bellwether issue has moved from one's stance on abortion to one's position vis-a-vis private property rights being TAKEN by government and GIVEN to another private person, a complete perversion of Article V of the Constitution. I still thinks it's a great idea to go take Souter's land and build a nice privately funded hotel, resort and spa.

[Andy]

Packie,
There are a lot of cities in this country that are in trouble. What say we have a two block area that are full of crack houses and or vacant buildings. The city doesn?t have the money to deal with this blight. A private company offers the city an idea to solve the problem. They offer to pay the city five times fair market value if the city takes this bad property by E.D. Then, sign a buy-sell to pay the city an additional three times the value and agree to build two high rise buildings, shops on the first floor, condo?s on the rest of the floors. It?s good for the city, for the neighborhood, good for the people. That?s sort of the thing the railroads offered, isn?t it?
Course, as Neil said, the devil?s in the details.

We know I?ve never passed the bar, sometimes I?ve not been able to pass a single bar, but just one other legal observation. We always think of the Bill of Rights as a collection of personal freedoms, by and large that is true. The 5th Amendment makes us free from unreasonable search and seizure, but there are currently 9 exceptions (not including the Patriots act). That would mean the government has an absolute right to search and take your property so long as it?s ?reasonable?. Similarly, we don?t have an absolute right to free speech, religion, press or even due process. Again, devil?s in the details.

Stay healthy, make the mayor your friend,
Andy

[reconeil]

As usual or more often than not, we're pretty-much on the same page regarding governmental absurdities or preferential dictates.

Regardless, and maybe you can explain something truly absurd,...even though quite common and quite acceptable daily in America?

Why is that the likes of Churchill, Moore and many other unarguably sympathizers and encouragers of America's enemies ARE ALWAYS GIVEN: "Absolute right to free speech" here in American (even during wartime),...when most differently patriotic or God Loving Americans ARE NOT??

Must only American Citizens espousing anti-American sentiments, underminings, character assassinations, bashings and/or the daily propaganda echoed daily by the devout politically-correct Party, clique or crowd,...be the only ones in America ACTUALLY privy to the nicety of: "Absolute right to free speech? Even though quite stupidly nationally-suicidal,...sure seems so to me. Hope leaders wake up,...before too late.

SuperScout...

Believe you're right on target with: "Souter's land"
Also, such a land appropriation should be done 5 times and/or to all 5 Justices or majority dictating such a quite greedy, lordly and cockamamie decision having absolutely nothing to do with emminent domain.

In fact, and if same appropriated properties were given over to The Parks Department for viewing by The Public,...SUCH WOULD ACTUALLY BE HOW: "Emminent Domain" IS DEFINED.
It's just too bad that apparently 5 Judges don't have dictionaries?

Neil :cd: :cd: :cd:

[exlrrp]

Originally posted by Andy Packie,
There are a lot of cities in this country that are in trouble. What say we have a two block area that are full of crack houses and or vacant buildings. The city doesn?t have the money to deal with this blight. A private company offers the city an idea to solve the problem. They offer to pay the city five times fair market value if the city takes this bad property by E.D. Then, sign a buy-sell to pay the city an additional three times the value and agree to build two high rise buildings, shops on the first floor, condo?s on the rest of the floors. It?s good for the city, for the neighborhood, good for the people. That?s sort of the thing the railroads offered, isn?t it?
Course, as Neil said, the devil?s in the details.

We know I?ve never passed the bar, sometimes I?ve not been able to pass a single bar, but just one other legal observation. We always think of the Bill of Rights as a collection of personal freedoms, by and large that is true. The 5th Amendment makes us free from unreasonable search and seizure, but there are currently 9 exceptions (not including the Patriots act). That would mean the government has an absolute right to search and take your property so long as it?s ?reasonable?. Similarly, we don?t have an absolute right to free speech, religion, press or even due process. Again, devil?s in the details.

Stay healthy, make the mayor your friend,
Andy

There is a hidden amendment in the Constitution, a Catch 22: They can do anything you can't stop them from doing.
I'm still amazed that this is such a big deal to conservatives--its been going on for centuries and was instigated by commercial intersts. Eminent Domain has been the tool that commercial intersts used to gain the private property they wanted for centuries. The Republican Party is the party of Business-- at least theyve always said so up to now. The Republican Party, through their legislators and judges have been supporting this for years. Its go nothing to do with liberals and any alleged fondness for Big Government. Is this the new thing Limbaugh and Savage are trumpteting as anti liberal?
I can't see how right wingers can complain about using the concept of eminent domain for personal profit when we have the best example in the world of it right in he White House:: George W Bush and the Texas Rangers. The land for the Texas Rangers new stadium in Arlington was fought over and only grabbed through the use of Eminent Domain. George Bush was brought in as the rainmaker, the deal cutter, the big name to break the deal--they even gave him his own baseball card!. George W Bush made millions and millions on a $200,000 investment(an estimated $15 million --makes Hilary's one day pork belly profits look like chumpchange) The Texas public also "value added" about $60 milion in giveaways and tax breaks.
A new Rangers stadium is hardly a railroad or a highway!! This was done with no other motive but profit! Could someone answer the question as to why the copnservatives are all riled up bout this when your Fearless Leader made so much of his fortune doing it?? Isn't that "situational ethics?"


And finally, if you disagree with this verdict--which, to tell the truth, I don't know enough about the specifics to give an opinion--tell the Republicans all about it--they appointed the majority of the Justices who ruled that way
Stay good
James

[reconeil]

Though having no reason in general for doubting exllrp, does anyone out there know who actually appointed the 5 Black Robed Lords/Justices or the majority dictators of such a cockamamie decision?

The 5 all being Republican/Conservative Appointees as exllrp alludes,...just doesn't seem right nor doesn't compute for me?

Guess I'm asking for a second opinion of what's what?

Neil

[Arrow]

Here are the current Justices:

• William H. Rehnquist. Before being appointed by President Nixon, he was active in Republican politics. One of two appointees in 1971, the other belonging to Lewis F. Powell. Rehnquist is a member of the conservative bloc, and also replaced a conservative, John M. Harlan, who nonetheless often sided with the liberal majority on civil rights cases.
• John Paul Stevens. Originally seen as a moderate, independent justice when appointed by President Ford, he has come to be seen as a very liberal justice in more recent years. Although, this perception may be accentuated by the fact that many of his colleagues were replaced by much more conservative Justices. Stevens is not one for forging consensus and often authors his own opinions. Liberal groups that were originally opposed to his appointment have since become his biggest supporters. Justice Stevens replaced William O. Douglas, a much more activist Justice with a strong human rights interest.
• Sandra Day O'Connor. Appointed by Reagan, she was a Republican State Senator for Arizona earlier in her career. While not activist, she is not a member of the conservative bloc either. With some conservative tendencies aside from sexual discrimination cases, she is often a swing vote. She replaced another centrist, Potter Stewart, who nonetheless would probably have been seen as a liberal on today's court.
• Antonin Scalia. Appointed by Reagan, he filled the opening left by Warren E. Burger when Rehnquist replaced the retiring Burger as Chief Justice. Scalia is outspokenly conservative, a strict constructionist, defers to states rights, and refuses to judge whether a law is an unwise or bad law - only whether it is constitutional. His legal reasoning has been criticized as inconsistent when consistency would lead to an opinion misaligned with the political right. His predecessor Burger was a centrist and not a member of the conservative bloc.
• Anthony McLeod Kennedy. Appointed by Reagan after the unsuccessful nominations of Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg. Originally seen as conservative, he has come to be seen as a centrist, and as seen as part of the "centrist bloc", similar to O'Connor. However, his style is significantly more conservative than previous Court generations. He replaced another then-centrist, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., who was appointed the same year as Rehnquist (1971), replacing Hugo L. Black, who was a very liberal/activist Justice.
• David Hacket Souter. His appointment by President Bush was intended to strengthen the conservative bloc. However, he ended up being a key swing vote, aligned with the centrist bloc of O'Connor and Kennedy. His appointment is seen as a miscalculation by President Bush, and his tendencies are to not undo the precedents set by the liberal courts before him. He replaced William Brennan, who was seen as a liberal.
• Clarence Thomas. His appointment by President Bush led to what is probably the widest ideological swing from one appointment in recent history. Active in Republican politics earlier in his career, including an effort to mute federal affirmative action guidelines, he replaced Thurgood Marshall, a liberal activist black justice who was extremely active in civil rights. Thomas has become part of the court's conservative bloc with Scalia and Rehnquist.
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Appointed by President Clinton, her career was forged mostly on several important sex discriminations cases that she argued before the Supreme Court. Seen as a liberal, she nonetheless expresses some conservative views and aligns herself with the belief that the Court should not overturn bad laws; only unconstitutional laws. She succeeded Byron Raymond White, who was a pro-civil-rights Justice but conservative otherwise. Ginsburg's appointment is seen as a moderate shift to the left overall.
• Stephen Breyer. Appointed by President Clinton, he replaced Harry Blackmun, who was originally seen as conservative but came to be seen as one of the most activist libertarian Justices after the abortion cases of 1973. Breyer is a financial and antitrust expert and is seen as an "intellectual counterweight" to Scalia. While supported strongly by Democrats, his was not a controversial appointment.

[Andy]

The current list:

Bill (help I?m dying) Rehnquist???????????.. Nixon
John Paul (Jones) Stevens????????????...... Ford
Sandy (under the robes I?m not wearing nothing) O?Connor.. Reagan
Tony (middle name Vito) Scalia??????????? Reagan
Tony (if my first name were only John) Kennedy????. Reagan
Dave (I never got any in college) Souter???????? Reagan
Clarence (?your trying to lynch me?) Thomas??????. Bush (1)
Ruther (masturbator) Ginsburg???????????? Clinton
Steve (no one knows who I am) Breyer??????????.. Clinton

Note: when he retired General Ike was asked if he made any mistakes while he was the President. He said yes, ?And there both sitting on the Supreme Court.?

Stay healthy,
Andy

PS: Sorry Arrow, your list is much more professional.

[darrels joy]

William H. Rehnquist,
President Nixon nominated him to the Supreme Court, and he took his seat as an Associate Justice on January 7, 1972.
Nominated as Chief Justice by President Reagan, he assumed that office on September 26, 1986.

John Paul Stevens,
President Ford nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat December 19, 1975.
* * *
Sandra Day O?Connor,
President Reagan nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat September 25, 1981.

Antonin Scalia,
President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat September 26, 1986.

Anthony M. Kennedy,
President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat February 18, 1988.

David Hackett Souter,
President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 9, 1990.

Clarence Thomas,
President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 23, 1991.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
President Clinton nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat August 10, 1993.

Stephen G. Breyer,
President Clinton nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat August 3, 1994.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/...iescurrent.pdf

[Arrow]

Andy,

I'm just quicker on the clicker with my cut and paste....

Thank you for your comments regard the Constitution. Great food for thought. I'm wondering if the signers of our Declaration of Independence would feel comfortable with the present state of affairs. If like minded men rose from the populous today would they be welcomed, ignored or jailed?