Can't...post...so...angry

This is retarded. Seriously retarded.

Seriously, this is how revolts get started.

Whooo boy.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This is one case where I would not be surprised if one or several of the displaced residents go postal and shoots people working at the offices of the New London Development Corp and/or the lawyers who represented the company.

Activist judges?

It's exactly the same as if you were appealing a money judgment in a civil suit: once the first judgment comes down, you're on the hook for the judgment. You can usually suspend execution until the appeals process runs its course by posting a bond, but you're going to be on the hook for interest from the date of judgment.

To be fair, you can see why this kind of a thing would arise - it discourages you from filing frivolous appeals that'll take years to wind their way through the courts while continuing to live on/make profit from/etc the thing that's already been decided against you.

However, this obviously seems unfair in a case where a one vote majority on the SC was required to decide it.

/flamebait

Just remember, it was those liberal judges who voted it for it, not the conservatives!

/end flamebait

bigpete53: Just remember, it was those liberal judges who voted it for it, not the conservatives!

They're American judges and that's what should have people enraged.

2005-08-18 05:20:21 PM GaryPDX

You mean those big liberal development corporations?

Woohoo! I got one! Hoo-eeeeee!

/rides 'em cowboy

In all seriousness, though, I am deeply saddened by the judgement of the Supreme Court. It's a very sad time for America seeing as how it's being assualted by BushCo on the privacy rights and the Supreme Court on property rights.

Loss of rights makes the baby Jeebus cry.

Specifically, these asshats in New London.

In the name of Our Father, who commanded "Thou Shalt Not Steal." Amen.

Corvus

And all 4 who voted against were appointed by Republicans.

Thank you for taking the bait.

Please see my above post to Gary.

ArkAngel

Great reference. I am humbled.

GaryPDX: Who disagrees?

OOOH!!! I know this one!!!

George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Republicans in Congress

mediaho: They're American judges and that's what should have people enraged.

It does have me enraged. But Bigpete53 does have a point, the same justices who voted for this are the same justices who regularly vote along "Liberal" lines (I use that term loosly). It was in essence a vote in favor of a corporation. Something that most people would assume only "Conservative" (used loosly again) justices would do.

This has to make many give pause and perhaps rethink where they stand in the political spectrum. If the left is where you involuntarily "Give" your private property away to someone else for the greater good (aka communisim) and the right is where you retain your own private property or sell it at a price you can agree to (aka capitalisim) then I think most would go for capitalisim in this situation.

I'm certainly not a screaming right wing whore but things like this do make me glad I lean a bit more to the right than the left on many issues. Property rights are high on that list.

Corvus:

The didn't say a law that stops it is unconstitutional. I don't like it either but just because a judge makes a decision that you don't like does not mean it is an incorrect decission.

You're right. It doesn't necessarily make it a bad decision, but this one is incredibly bad nonetheless. They changed the meaning of the phrase "public use" to mean "public benefit" and effectively rewrote that part of the constitution. The change in meaning is quite significant. Before, the government had a responsbility to use the land in a manner that allowed the public to access the land and benefited everyone directly.

Radioactive Ass: It was in essence a vote in favor of a corporation.

That's funny. You see it as a vote for corporations, but I see it as a vote for big government and against individual rights.

I see it as a liberal decision because liberals typically want the government to have more power while conservatives want a smaller government and more individual rights.

I assume that you are left-leaning politically and you see this in one light. I am right-leaning and I see it in another. It's interesting that we both see this as a bad thing for the same reasons, but form place the blame in different directions.

/Bush/republicans aren't conservative.
//I'm not a Republican.

I seriously hope that no one patronizes this development. The citizens should make it known to any potential tennants that their businesses will not be patronized.

Any word on the Souter property?

scooby111: I assume that you are left-leaning politically and you see this in one light.

Nope. Registered republican in a very blue area.

My point was that many of the people who posted before me are self described liberals and were outraged at this decision. I was only trying to point out the simple fact that perhaps they should re-think where they are on the political spectrum and what being "Left" or "Right" leaning actually entails.

You are absolutely correct on it being a vote for big government. But it was also a vote for corporations in that by redefining what public good is, allowed increased tax revenue (from the corporation that won the case) to the city to be considered as for the publics good while trampling the rights of individual property owners. Nothing good can come from this in the long run.

I have a very good friend who is a retired litigator who thinks this the most assinine decision he's ever seen. and I loosely quote him "It opens a floodgate unimaginable to most people due to its potential misuse and creates many oportunities for corruption". And, you will have to trust me on this, if anyone knows about corruption it's this guy. Leave it at that.

Bush is not a conservative. I will agree with you on that one. RR is spinning in his grave and daddy can't be very proud of his son right about now.

I wonder if the people getting sued for the "back rent" to the city development corporation paid property taxes to the city during that time period.

Rent --or-- property taxes, pick one, you greedy assh*les.

/makes me almost glad I can't afford to buy property.

2wheeljunkie asks:
Any word on the Souter property?

That is a completely stupid proposal going nowhere. Do get away with what New London did it is necessary for municipal authorities to have public hearings and come up with a plan for improvements. The uttrely bogus and misguided attempts to involve Souter's property did not involve any municipal authorities, there were no public hearings, and the foolish malecontents involved did not even bother to produce a plan showing how their proposal improves the area. It is really sad that so many people have no clue at all about what is actually going on around them.

Radioactive Ass: Nope. Registered republican in a very blue area.

A farking conservative in the Bay area who likes to play pool and is ex-military?!? What the hell? If you drop that pansy 8-ball game and start playing nine ball, you'll make my favorites list. ;)

I understand what you are saying and I agree 100%. I can see it from both sides. It just seems interesting to me that everyone hates this decision for the same reason, but everyone (including me) has their own jaundiced view of why it happened. It does make you wonder exactly why the left and the right don't get along on more issues. We all pretty much want the same things.

I've talked to a couple of lawyers also and not a one of them think this is a good decision. Even on of the justices that voted for it (Stevens?) commented that it opened up a whole bunch of undesirable consequences. It kinda makes you wonder why he voted for it. Did he honestly think that the framers wanted the government to take private land and give it over to another private entity? The wording is unambiguous. The only reason that I can see that someone would want to change the (obvious, IMHO) menaing of the amendment woule be to expand the powers of government.

Did anyone else misread the headline? I read it as "Screw you Supreme Court." Guess I was off on that one.

How is it that just 560 men and a few corporate CEOs can
force laws upon millions of others that don't want them?

Once again people, the SCOTUS ruling left the decision up to local courts / officials. That's as it should be. Take your grievances up with the asshats in New London.

They're lucky they got any front rent.

And that, my friends, is the reason we pay money into escrow when we're suing over real property.

This guy's attorney should have known about that potential expense and had his client start an escrow account just in case he lost.

How's the one going aganst the Supreme's house?

Riots? yea, right. You 'tards won't fight for anything and will just keep whining until you're turn into green chips for the elite rulers.