slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted December 11, 2005 04:46 PM
 Edited By: slug on 11 Dec 2005 18:45
Thieves suck. Thieves are scum. Elected thieves are below scum.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47795
WTF: "rescuing"?!??!?!
he's stealing their property because they are working class people so some rich developer friend can make $$$$$ off a yacht club.
Bastards. I guess only really rich people are allowed to own oceanfront property or property on the intercoastal....
Thieves are scum. Even if they are elected thieves.
Anyone here live near these clowns? I'm glad i live in a state which is in the process of putting the ixnay on private developers getting land from 'eminent domain' abuse.
      
|
jimzx9r
Expert Class
Posts: 451
|
posted December 11, 2005 04:56 PM
What a joke. They're just trying to push their poor off onto somebody else.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 11, 2005 05:22 PM
Edited By: trenace on 11 Dec 2005 17:23
Yes, this entire principle that governments (city, country, state, or I suppose Federal) can seize properties under eminent domain simply on account of a developer wanting it to build his stuff on, is horrible law. It's what you get though when the norm for judges is the theory that they can create whatever new laws they want rather than laws being limited to legislators. So it's the law today thanks to such judges.
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted December 11, 2005 05:34 PM
i'll don't understand how someone can seize land under eminent domain when what it's being seized for isn't a necessary public project. i always took teh eminent domain concept to be for things like building highways or schools or hospitals etc, and onyl when there isnt an alternative location. one such case i remember lcoally was when they were upgrading an intersection (as in traffic lights all round) to a proper highway intersection (as in the highway traffic doesnt stop) on the federal highway. that makes sense. but for private developments like a yacht club?!? how the hell is that even allowed? that cannot possibly be constitutional.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 11, 2005 05:46 PM
Edited By: trenace on 11 Dec 2005 17:53
It's very simple: because some judges said they can. You see, the law is LIVING... it doesn't keep on meaning the same thing, it's meaning doesn't depend on the words written, it means whatever a judge says it does. And some judges decided that "public use" includes getting more taxes for the property.
So if a developer argues that the property will be valued higher if it's taken from the previous owner against their will and put into his hands, then it's peachy-keen!
It all comes down to judicial activism, that is to say, "legislation from the bench." Various laws-in-effect can't be accomplished by legislators passing them, because the public won't tolerate it, the legislators would be voted out. So instead it's accomplished by the end run, by having judges announce that law actually saying different, known for 100 years plus to mean different, now means this new thing... and the judges are of course unaccountable to anyone, can't be removed.
So those wishing for such laws love judicial activism, and are extremely opposed to there being judges that have it that the law means what it plainly enough says, and if you want a different law, then you need to pass a different law. Such judges are hated by a given segment.
Welcome to American politics as of the latter half of the 20th and now the beginning of the 21st century... the struggle between pro "legislation from the bench" and opposition to it actually is one of the most central issues. The stronger hand by far is the legislation from the bench side, and this particular question of property seizure is an example of another of their victories.
BTW, David Souter was the swing vote on the Supreme Court (put on by the first Bush thinking he was against judicial activism, but actually he is all for it) in the decision in question. There's a group that put together a movement for seizure of Souter's house to build a hotel, using this exact theory of the hotel generating more tax revenue, and the hotel needing to be on that property because the draw specifically was going to be that it was built on the house of the judge that ended property rights in America, made them subject to any developer and politician's whim. I donated $50 to the cause.  Don't know how it's going though. My guess is Souter has too much pull for his law to be allowed to affect him.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 11, 2005 05:56 PM
Edited By: trenace on 11 Dec 2005 17:58
Ah, here's the latest on the project to seize Souter's house, to make him taste his own medicine:
January Rallyâ"Supporters Across America called to Action
Date & Details Announced 12/15 on Hannity & Colmes
THE FIRST BATTLE is fast approaching in our campaign to end eminent domain abuse by having those who advocate it experience it themselves. We are planning a rally in Weare, New Hampshire in the first half of January. Specific details are being decided and will be provided to all who express interest. As of December 5th, over eighty people from as far west as Washington State and far south as Texas have indicated a desire to fly to Weare for the rally.
The purpose of the rally is to help our supporters in Weare gather signatures for their ballot initiative. This initiative asks the Town of Weare to use eminent domain to seize the land of Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter for the purpose of economic development through the construction of an Inn. It must be filed by the end of January and will be voted on in March 2006.
Although it only takes 25 signatures to put this initiative on the ballot we would like to collect as many as possible. Souter has reportedly laughed at us and thinks we aren't serious. Let's show him otherwise. Let's try to get more than 50% of Weare's 5,552 registered voters to sign it!
If 100 people from across America show up and each one collects 30 signatures over a January weekend we will send a message to all politiciansâ"stop stealing our property or YOU will be on the receiving end of the eminent domain steamroller.
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted December 11, 2005 06:43 PM
as funny as i think it would be, poetic justice and all, i'd feel like a hypocrite supporting using eminent domain against souter.
unfortunately the supreme court decision, though hideous on the surface, really was technically correct. The constitution in no way defines public use. That IS left up to the local and state governments (and many state legislatures have bills that limit or outlaw eminent domain for private development in progress because of the supreme court's decision)
i mean, how can you protest eminent domain abuse by abusing eminent domain to make your point? The ends don't justify the means, not in a country under the rule of law anyway.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 11, 2005 06:44 PM
Edited By: trenace on 11 Dec 2005 18:47
I don't see it that way -- how can Souter feel he would be victimized in this process? It's a process he says he believes in. It's just doing what he wants. Or says he wants -- when it's to other people.
The only hypocrite involved is Souter himself.
I disagree with your analysis: when the public is not using the property after seizure, but rather a private developer uses it for private purposes, obviously that is not public use, according to the meaning of words. However those that legislate from the bench do not worry about the meaning of words. They have no problem reading "public use" as meaning, thanks to how the law is allegedly "living," private use, also regardless of over 100 years of precedent to the contrary.
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted December 11, 2005 06:46 PM
if we use eminent domain to take away someone's property for our own private purposes, how can we condemn anyone else for doing the same?
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 11, 2005 06:48 PM
Simple -- we condemn those that seize property for their own private purposes FROM PEOPLE THAT OPPOSE SUCH.
Souter supports it. So he is no victim. How could he remotely argue that he is being wronged?
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted December 11, 2005 06:53 PM
what good is a selectively enforced law?
If it is ok to take souter's house, regardless of his stand on the issue, why is it not ok to take your house?
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 11, 2005 06:58 PM
Because of the question of consent.
A transaction that both parties consent to is a good thing.
Souter has given consent to the seizing of his property, as I interpret it.
Why should anyone object to property transfer where both parties are agreed that it is proper? Souter has shown he agrees it is proper.
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted December 11, 2005 07:10 PM
actually he has not given consent, because he is refusing the sale and eminent domain is being invoked to seize that property
as for the secondhalf:
WE know it is not proper to steal one person's property against their will and give it to another. To condone this action removes ALL of our credibility.
Their actions to seize souter's property are indefensible and reprehensible. They become the exact same thing souter was when he put the governmental stamp of approval on the removal of the private property protection of the constitution. It doesn't matter who does the stealing, it is still wrong.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 11, 2005 07:17 PM
Edited By: trenace on 11 Dec 2005 19:18
Well, we've already hashed it out -- I disagree, Souter's ruling proves he considers it proper. If he says otherwise outside of court then he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, but surely his Supreme Court ruling outweighs statements he may make outside of court. Any lawyer or judge would agree with that principle. If his property is seized according to his own ruling he is no victim, he quite literally brought it on himself, unlike those that truly are victims of seizures legalized by his ruling.
|
ninja12
Needs a job
Posts: 3310
|
posted December 12, 2005 12:25 PM
I agree with both of you.
It's wrong to take anyones house,
and his house should be taken.
This is a case of one wrong to correct the wrongs done to many everyday across america.
Most will agree that this law is being abused, but nothing will be done until
some of the abuser feel the pain.
Killing is wrong but sometime you have to kill the bad guy to stop him from killing others.
my .02
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 12, 2005 12:30 PM
Edited By: trenace on 12 Dec 2005 12:46
I'll answer slug's question (from the other thread) here. He asked, if a judge said murder was OK, would it be OK to murder him.
Well, we have to make this more parallel for it to be a parallel question.
Since the proposed taking of Souter's house is not by individual action, not by some individual committing violence against him, but by a quite specific and now established legal process, this murder question has to be turned the same way to be parallel. Namely, by established legal process.
So, if a judge rules that those who have done a given thing should be put to death under the legal system, then if he himself has done that thing, can it be correct to put him to trial himself under that system and let him face that penalty himself?
The answer is yes.
While not quite as parallel, slug's position is somewhat like saying, "How can anyone be opposed to Saddam Hussein's murders and then say he should be put to death?" To some minds that is a persuasive argument, that they might even claim is inevitably true and all who disagree are stupid, doublespeakers, duplicitious, weaselers, manipulators, or whatever words they like that we've already seen thrown around: but to others, not persuasive at all.
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted December 12, 2005 01:21 PM
keep in mind it's not necessary to actaully follow thru with the threat of taking his house, just to get to the stage that u have achieved permission to do so (ie. he knows he's losing his house) then drop the request. that way he learns his lesson but rather than getting pissed off at those that "wronged" him, _hopefully_ he will be greatful that they are being the "bigger man" and will inspire him to be a little more humane in his rulings.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 12, 2005 01:46 PM
Hmm, maybe all we need is a ruling to put Saddam to death, then we let him go, having gotten the ruling that he could be put to death. Hopefully he'll be grateful that we were being the bigger man and that will inspire him to be more humane in the future. 
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted December 12, 2005 01:47 PM
damn straight. FREE SADDAM!!
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 12, 2005 01:55 PM
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted December 12, 2005 04:58 PM
my entire point is missed.
If you think that it is wrong to take someone's property for your own personal use, except for judge souter because he said (wrongly in your opinion) that it was ok to do so, and then you take their property, you are either a liar or a hypocrite.
you can't say it is wrong for someone else to do something and then do that very act yourself OR ADVOCATE doing that act and expect to NOT be called a hypocrite.
I'm at a loss how it can possibly be acceptable...
PS capital punishment is not murder... not to hijack your own semantics arguments...
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 12, 2005 05:32 PM
Edited By: trenace on 12 Dec 2005 18:34
Btw, I have no idea what part of my argument regarding the justice of applying for Souter's house to be seized you call "semantics." Can you be specific? The question of that particular case so far as I can tell has very little to do with the meaning of language, or at least, regarding the justice of applying to seize Souter's house, I have not spotted a single word in that argument of which we've disagreed on the meaning.
While you say and I don't disagree that you are at a loss, it's demonstrated, from others doing so, that it's possible to understand the position that it is just for Souter to taste his own medicine. This is an area of opinion, not mathematical true/false.
I agree that capital punishment is not murder. However, the situation is quite comparable: many of those that are opposed to capital punishment do indeed make the argument that one can't be opposed to murder and therefore adminster to death to murderers as that is allegedly hypocrisy -- as you alleged in this case -- while others (apparently including yourself) reject that argument. Similarly, while I say that where a judge has ruled a given legal process lawful and proper in given instances, then it can be correct to cause him, should he be in that instance, to face that legal process himself.
You disagree, but it's not so that a reasonable person cannot differ from you on that point, and it's not so that it's inconceivable.
Actually pretty clearly I'm not the only one that does disagree with you, who says it's reasonable and just for Souter to be required to taste his own medicine, should the legal process, according to standards he set, find that he should. So obviously it's a comprehensible position. Individuals could differ however on what weight to give to what factors.
|
worm~hole
Needs a life
Miles to go before I sleep....
Posts: 10623
|
posted December 12, 2005 06:44 PM
...power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely...
____________
“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men
stand ready in the night to visit violence on those
who would do us harm.”
-George Orwell
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 12, 2005 07:01 PM
Actually this is probably the only accountability Souter will ever see as a lifetime-tenure Supreme Court Justice.
In general they have no accountability whatsoever.
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC