posted on June 24, 2005 07:38:28 AM newOrleans - you should understand that the Supreme Court does not pass laws.
The Supreme Courts job is not that make judgements regarding morality. Their only consideration is every case before them is in legal compliance with the constitution.
Damn those activist judges and their ruling. I am going to start a campaign to have the constitution amended so cities do not have the power to seize homes. It is so immoral that they can do this.
We have to protect our families and our children from these activist judges.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on June 24, 2005 07:48:01 AM new
:h for pete's sake fenix, another totally unnecessary nit picking pompousass lecture to orleans!
I think I understood the POINT orleans was making without your "corrections".::
But then it was not directed towards you now was it Crow. It very clearly said ORLEANS at the beginning. Believe it not sweetheart, I do not post for your pleasure.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 24, 2005 08:48:29 AM newWelcome Back Miss Mags. Have you finally learned your lesson about playing nicely with others.
Why, Miss Fenix, I truly believe that I'm already by far the Nicest person on the RT. If I were to get any sweeter, everybody would surely go into sugar shock!
[ edited by maggiemuggins on Jun 24, 2005 08:51 AM ]
posted on June 24, 2005 11:58:08 AM new
Urban sprawl now has the green light to grow without restraint.
I guess I did misunderstand about the supreme court passing laws, but regardless their decision to rule that land can be "seized" is ILLEGAL - it violates the Consititution.
Public use of land was fine as it stood, highways, etc.
Instead of going to the root causes of Urban blight, now city officials can just knock it down and build a bright shiny mall full of crap from China.
Laws should reflect a standard of human values and respect. Laws rulings etc come from people and people have a responsiblity toward each other.
It is the most sickening stupid UNAMERICAN anti constitutional ruling EVER
You know the Supreme Court ruled SLAVERY was an acceptable practice also - you see what happens when laws become divorced from morality but more importantly from common sense.
The fact that any city or state goverment has the ultimate power to seize the property of a private citizen is an imbalance of power and NOT what the constitution implied.
To deny private ownership of land or put highly interpretive definitions on it is not on unconstitutional but criminal. It makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
WHere do the poor people go to live? will there eventually be a designated state for the poor to live in. Will we become a totally seperatist soiciety? Will the poor be outsourced to china to work in factories with the lure of free tenant housing?
It also means that any business in any nation can come it and take over land with the promise of a supposed tax base.
American citizens have been made into a mockery for the entire world with this ruling. Our homes which once gave us peace of mind will from now on be tainted with possibility that it could be taken away by a local goverment.
posted on June 24, 2005 12:10:37 PM new
::you see what happens when laws become divorced from morality but more importantly from common sense.::
Yes, things like abortion become illegal again because they offend the moral code of whatever the courts at the time beliefs are then every 10-15 years you have a court with a different balance of moral views and everything gets turned on it's head again and now you no longer have a judicial branch of the government, you have the morality branch.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 24, 2005 12:44:10 PM new
You can take morality out of it if you want to, I don't care. It is still an unconstitutional ruling to seize private property for building of private businesses.
posted on June 24, 2005 12:54:36 PM new
I agree....this ruling is one of the MOST un-American acts that have taken place lately.
I saw these very average homes which sit about 200' to 300' feet from a beautiful ocean front. THAT'S what this is all about. There is no way the government, be it Federal or State, should be allowed to TAKE family homes away from these people so that a drug company and other mall businesses can be put in it's place. You need more revenue??? fine...then tax them more.
Now that cities can take anyones homes....they are free to also decide that since Churches don't bring in any revenue to the counties....then they can 'take' them too. And they can use the excuse they need the property in order to build business that will bring in more funding.
No home in America is safe now that this ruling has been made. It gives the government MORE power to do as it wants...and takes from the individual homeowner their rights.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
I believe we have hit on a subject that both the liberals and the conservatives find distasteful. I have been observing some polls and the American people are not happy. In most, over 90% think this was a wrong decision. We cannot stand united on all fronts, but on this is one I believe we can.
posted on June 24, 2005 01:38:11 PM new
Well, the Supreme Court are the ones that rule on constitutionality so I think you are incorrect when you say that it is unconstitutional. I do believe that it is morally wrong to do it and I can only hope that state governments start taking the recommendation included in the final opinions that they pass localized laws banning the process. It's hard to believe that any elected official would endorse an action such as this, unless of course they already had plans to retire from public life.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 24, 2005 01:50:27 PM new
"""for pete's sake fenix, another totally unnecessary nit picking pompousass lecture to orleans!
I think I understood the POINT orleans was making without your "corrections".::
But then it was not directed towards you now was it Crow. It very clearly said ORLEANS at the beginning. Believe it not sweetheart, I do not post for your pleasure. """
Believe it or not, sweetie pumpkins, you posted on the RT...it's open to everyone!
So you said "Orleans"...doesn't change the fact , darling sugar lumps, that it WAS "another totally unnecessary nit picking pompousass lecture ".
You obviously, dearest sugar plum, are not posting for anyone's pleasure.
posted on June 24, 2005 02:16:54 PM new
Crow - I don't think I have ever encountered anyone with such a burning passion for sticking their own foot in their mouth.
You see sweetheart honey darling dear, my message was obviously not as unwarranted as you claim considering that Orleans him/herself stated I guess I did misunderstand about the supreme court passing laws. But in truth, my original point still stands. I truly could not care less what you think. You just don't register on my relevent opinion scale.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 24, 2005 02:26:50 PM newWell, the Supreme Court are the ones that rule on constitutionality so I think you are incorrect when you say that it is unconstitutional.
I again, don't agree. They interpret the law....doesn't mean they have a special 'channel' into what our ForeFathers actually meant in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.
Imo, they'd be rolling over in their graves watching this ruling/decision come down as it did. They would, imo, NEVER have approved of government taking personal property from people to give to other people, more affluient people to be used for business purposes. That has come from changes made to our laws....not from our Founders.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 24, 2005 04:09:37 PM new
I don't see this as a republican issue. Some people just don't get it. No one is here to save us, no party to champion our cause. The only two Democratic Justices both voted for this ruling. It was a dem rep in Conn. who pushed for Phizer to get their way. The republican judges were split down the middle. Its time for a third political party in this country. Democrats and republicans are just on fat party - the DOLLAR PARTY
posted on June 24, 2005 05:04:28 PM new
fenix, DAHLING, I don't think I ever encountered a more pompousass ...oh...except for linduh.
"" truly could not care less what you think. You just don't register on my relevent opinion scale.""
Love to answer my posts though doncha, honeypot
Oh, and yes, you made a BIIIIIG POINT! One that a lot of people besides fenix knows. I assumed it went without saying but we know that wouldn't stop you from giving a lecture.
[ edited by crowfarm on Jun 24, 2005 05:06 PM ]
h for pete's sake fenix, another totally unnecessary nit picking pompousass lecture to orleans!
