| Author |
Message |
    
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - 06:36 pm: | 
|
The decision I was referring to was very recent, not 2005. I'll have to find it. The decision shocked a lot of people, given the conservative majority in the court. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - 06:44 pm: |
|
"It's almost criminal how liberals will look at something, claim it's wrong and blame conservatives, when history shows that it was the liberals doing the wrong in the first place."
I can't disagree with that. Take our current predicament. The left blames Bush, but it all started when the baby boomers became 60s radicals and now govern us. Progressive/Socialist policies only make rich people poor, they don't elevate anyone. I suppose it was ok for a while, but now that the government has run out of other people's money, we're forked. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - 06:45 pm: |
|
It's hard to imagine the court would revisit the same issue again in less than 5 years. This decision certainly shocked lots of people. I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's a conservative court. Could be the lies of the left from the failed attempt by Gore to steal an election that was finally stopped by the court. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - 06:50 pm: |
|
Not in this case, I don't think. I could be wrong. Good lord I hope I am.
Our leaders...
|
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - 06:51 pm: |
|
Ive said it before, the hippies are running the country ..... |
Strokizator
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - 07:09 pm: |
|
My big beef with the national monuments is that it permanently closes those areas to any mode of transportation other than walking. The areas that qualify for monument status are supposed to be, by law, roadless wilderness but in fact are crisscrossed with all kinds of trails, single tracks, double tracks, etc that have historically been used by the off-road community. Now they are off limits to just about everyone and the loss of revenue to the communities around these "monuments" will be devastating.
In Obama's defense, just about every president as a part of his legacy sets aside public lands as monuments and also pardons criminals as they leave office. Obama may be the first to designate these lands so early in his term.
My only question is "How much is enough?" |
Buellkowski
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - 07:29 pm: |
|
My big beef with the national monuments is that it permanently closes those areas to any mode of transportation other than walking.
I don't think this is true. Roads, paths, and trails within National Monuments are maintained by the agency designated responsible for their upkeep, such as BLM, FWS, NPS, etc.
I believe it is true that off-road, off-trail activities by motorized & non-motorized vehicles is curtailed and/or regulated by the administering agency. Again, that's the intent of the Antiquities Act. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - 07:43 pm: |
|
Clinton, ( if I recall ) made a big chunk of Utah a Monument.
Some complained that the land so seized had a vast amount of coal beneath it, now protected from mining, and note large illegal campaign......I mean, bribes, to the Clintons from an Indonesian coal baron.
He also pardoned a few people that had given large bribes to the Clintons, but that is Presidential Privilege. ( I'd pardon a lot of people if the world went insane enough to make me Prez. Let all who have faith pray that never happens. You atheists, Hope. )
As to selective blindness.
If you are really, really, really, bored, you can find many references on this board where people ( me & others ) defended the dread Boosh against lies, and invited those who did not like him to discuss his actual failings. They seldom did.
One thing I KNOW was complained about was his lack of veto's and bulging budgets, and ( in my tinted glasses memory ) mostly it was conservatives and libertarian types who so complained. Some "lefties did too, but not nearly as often, they kept harping about the WMD's the Clinton's got permission to depose Saddam because of. Still do, I see.
Of course I think Oswald, a communist KGB wannabe loser shot Kennedy. Alone.
The new London decision is a travesty. It's really corruption meets totalitarianism.
This new monument to the annointed one? I suspect a payoff to the watermelon movement.
(Message edited by aesquire on March 03, 2010) |
Buellkowski
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - 07:52 pm: |
|
I'm also reading that an act of Congress can rescind any National Monument designation, so theoretically it's not permanent. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - 09:12 pm: |
|
Yup, conservative majority in 2005:
I know they don't teach actual government courses at Berkley any more, but what does a Conservative Majority in 2005 have to do with a Supreme Court ruling in 2005? |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 10:29 am: |
|
OK, so the 2005 decision was the one I was thinking of. I didn't think it had been five years...where does the time go? And with that, I offer this humble apology:
I'm really, really sorry. I apologize unreservedly. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.
There. And you didn't have to dangle me by my ankles to get it. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 10:50 am: |
|
Darn, I had the hooks and pulleys all ready. Warming up the fires of the pit of despair..... I guess that's just gonna cost me when they pass the religious tax on carbon.
Hoot, I think you may have it. Federal lands are, under a watermelon admin. to be declared "pristine" and forbidden to motor vehicles, trail improvements, the hand or foot of man. Vast areas you are forbidden to even see, so that the polar bears that are driven south by the ice age have a place to play with baby seals in peace. 
MY view on the '05 court was 4 hard leftists, 3 moderate righties, 2 middle left semi sane ones, and the ever spoken threat that "bush the younger" was going to pack the court like FDR. (didn't happen)
All in all, more left than the citizens, but way more right than the average college prof.
The idea that your town can take your property, and give it to another if he pays them more, in bribes and/or taxes..... well it's a good thing that I didn't live there. I'd be in jail, now. |
Hex
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 11:01 am: |
|
Looks like 2005 was a right wing court to me.
Stevens-Nixon
Kennedy-Ford
Souter-Bush
Ginsburg-Clinton
Breyer-Clinton
Oconnor-Reagan
Renquist-Reagan
Scalia-Reagan
Thomas-Bush
How ever they mix up the votes to cover their butts with dissenting opinion, it is my opinion that this is a conservative majority court, and being such, a conservative majority decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_L ondon
Suzette Kelo's supporters ranged from the libertarian Institute for Justice (the lead lawyers) to the NAACP, AARP, the late Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference and South Jersey Legal Services. The latter groups signed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain has often been used against politically weak communities with high concentrations of minorities and elderly.
[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takings_Clause#Eminen t_domain
The Supreme Court has held that the federal government and each state has the power of eminent domain—the power to take private property for "public use". The Takings Clause, the last clause of the Fifth Amendment, limits the power of eminent domain by requiring that "just compensation" be paid if private property is taken for public use. The just compensation provision of the Fifth Amendment did not originally apply directly to the states, but the federal courts now hold that the Fourteenth Amendment extended the effects of that provision to the states. The federal courts, however, have shown much deference to the determinations of Congress, and even more so to the determinations of the state legislatures, what constitutes "public use". The property need not actually be used by the public; rather, it must be used or disposed of in such a manner as to benefit the public welfare or public interest. One exception that restrains the federal government is that the property must be used in exercise of a government's enumerated powers.
The owner of the property that is taken by the government must be justly compensated. When determining the amount that must be paid, the government does not need to take into account any speculative schemes that the owner claims the property was intended for use in. Normally, the fair market value of the property determines "just compensation". If the property is taken before the payment is made, interest accrues (though the courts have refrained from using the term "interest").
The federal courts have not restrained state and local governments from seizing privately owned land for private commercial development on behalf of private developers. This was upheld on June 23, 2005, when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kelo v. City of New London. This 5–4 decision remains controversial. The majority opinion, by Justice Stevens, found that it was appropriate to defer to the city's decision that the development plan had a public purpose, saying that "the city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion observed that in this particular case the development plan was not "of primary benefit to . . . the developer" and that if that was the case the plan might have been impermissible. In the dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued that this decision would allow the rich to benefit at the expense of the poor, asserting that "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively delete[s] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment". A number of states, in response to Kelo, have passed laws and/or state constitutional amendments which make it more difficult for state governments to seize private land. Takings that are not "for public use" are not directly covered by the doctrine,[8] however such a taking might violate due process rights under the Fourteenth amendment, or other applicable law.
The exercise of the police power of the state resulting in a taking of private property was long held to be an exception to the requirement of government paying just compensation. However the growing trend under the various state constitution's taking clauses is to compensate innocent third parties whose property was destroyed or "taken" as a result of police action.[9] |
Reindog
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 11:10 am: |
|
Hex,
You get a C- with your latest posting.
It doesn't always work associating whether a Justice is left/right with the President who nominated him. The Founding Fathers intended for the Judicial branch to be independent and not swayed by the politics of the other two branches. That is why they hold office for life and are free to go in whatever direction they please.
For example, Stevens was nominated by Nixon but is widely regarded as a liberal. You need to complete the research as this is YOUR supposition. |
B00stzx3
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 11:54 am: |
|
Keep your socialist government out of my Medicare and Social Security 
Just making a funny chill |
Hex
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 12:53 pm: |
|
Heaven forbid! A right winger appointing a lib? What was that tricky Dick thinking? I can't imagine that he made a mistake, he was just too careful.
And, to say the Supreme Court is not a political body is laughable. It's all politics all the time in this Post-Rovian Utopia.
C- is still a passing grade even from a biased professor. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 01:25 pm: |
|
"And, to say the Supreme Court is not a political body is laughable"
I tend to agree. It was NOT supposed to be that way, but I seriously doubt politics does not play a role in their decisions. If it was strictly law, and these justices all supposedly know the law, why do they come to different decisions, pretty much along party lines every time?
Different interpretations of the written word? That depends on what your definition of "is" is. That's politics. |
Milt
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 01:26 pm: |
|
Reindog has a point. Earl Warren, a respected Republican, was appointed by Eisenhower specifically because Ike thought he'd do nothing. Surprise !
However:
I think Hex's point was that flaming liberal, commie, progressive, totalitarian enemies of freedom and liberty like NAACP, SCLC and South Jersey Legal Services sided with Kelo against the taking of private property.
Furthermore, there is progression in the cases cited making it easier for the government to take property, effectively neutering the Takings clause of the Fifth amendment. |
Drkside79
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 01:54 pm: |
|
   |
Reindog
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 02:06 pm: |
|
I didn't mean to imply that the Supreme Court is not free of politics. It is an independent body that is not accountable to any political party. That is why justices sometimes change the color of their feathers.
My personal view is that Kelo v City of New London was a travesty and opened the door for future jackbooting. |
Reindog
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 02:08 pm: |
|
I kinda looked like that photo of Bill Clinton when I went to Antioch College in 1972. But my hair was MUCH longer. Spark 'em up boyz, jest don't exhale! |
Milt
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 02:20 pm: |
|
Some anagrams for "progressive":
rove's gripes
vice gropers
gore's vipers
Some anagrams for "conservative":
craven soviet
tavern voices
starve novice |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 05:21 pm: |
|
There are "Progressives" (believers in big gov) on both side so the isle. It is not liberal or conservative to support outlandish verdicts on imminent domain, it is "Progressive".
It is NOT "Libertarian". |
Tbolt_pilot
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 06:08 pm: |
|
Day after day I keep seeing this thread...
So what's the next step in socializing the US?
...and I open it up to see how people are going to socialize in the future. You know like, phone calls, emails, forums, tweetering, etc. And every day I'm disappointed that it's another political thread. 
I guess I keep reading "socializing in the US?" |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 07:39 pm: |
|
A socialized medical insurance program allows all behavior to be regulated, since it all relates to health and thus govt. costs. So... bye bye motorcycles, skydiving, nascar, ( all racing ) McDonalds and cookies.
A religious prohibition and sharia law like tax on "carbon" emissions allows total control over energy costs. Electric, heating oil/gas, vehicle fuel, all can be adjusted to modify the behavior of the masses, by the privileged elite. ( who will still fly on military 757's like free charters, complete with catering, and arrive at their destinations in armored SUV's )
Since higher fuel costs determine the cost of ALL things delivered to the stores, figure massive inflation. Add multi trillion$ deficit spending, you get massive inflation.
Proposed taxes to pay for the deficit spending make the masses ( middle & lower income ) poorer.
Combine massive inflation, a bankrupt govt., high taxes, socialized health care, and you've got....the Weimar republic. ( look it up if you don't know it. )
Now, I still find it hard to believe the radical talk show view that this is a deliberate effort to destroy the economy to give the govt. more power. But incompetence as an excuse is getting thin.
So, the next step IS the current agenda.
All to a multi year drumbeat of class envy, racial & economic hatred, massive bribes and the victimization of Las Vegas. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 08:40 pm: |
|
You get a C- with your latest posting.
It doesn't always work associating whether a Justice is left/right with the President who nominated him. The Founding Fathers intended for the Judicial branch to be independent and not swayed by the politics of the other two branches. That is why they hold office for life and are free to go in whatever direction they please.
For example, Stevens was nominated by Nixon but is widely regarded as a liberal. You need to complete the research as this is YOUR supposition.
A C-?
You're generous. |
Reindog
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 10:42 pm: |
|
A C- was the correct grade. Hex is learning and is open to learning. Mind you, C- is nothing to be proud of. |
Milt
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2010 - 09:32 am: |
|
+1 Tbolt |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 11:31 pm: |
|
Here is the Prophet in a revealing view of his attitude.
From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is the ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption. Al Gore. NYT editorial.
It's a religion to take from you that which you earn because they ( the takers ) are wiser, more enlightened, and have a much better vision of what should be than you. You proletariat fool.
The "global warming" thing is just an excuse. They had the same answer back in the 1970's when it was global cooling.
It's really a good thing I never am in the same place as Gore. I'd hate to make those poor SS guys beat me up. They'd only be doing their jobs. |
|
