A present for Justice Souter

**Major Robert Dump** · 01-25-2006, 19:30

Since the idea of "public benefit" will change based on who is elected locally and whose noses they have up their butts, maybe this will give the good justice an idea of the pandoras box the supreme court opened with their imminent domain ruling. Enjoy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4639374.stm

**Xiahou** · 01-25-2006, 19:57

This has been going on for awhile now. I hope it works.

**BDC** · 01-25-2006, 20:47

Originally Posted by Xiahou

This has been going on for awhile now. I hope it works.

It would be wonderfully comical.

I just await the White House being bulldozed for a new mall.

**Goofball** · 01-25-2006, 22:00

Originally Posted by Xiahou

This has been going on for awhile now. I hope it works.

In this, we are in complete agreement.

The idea that somebody can take your house away in order to make money for themselves, just because it would also happen to benefit others, is tyrannical.

**Proletariat** · 01-25-2006, 23:43

Forget all the other rights. Speech, religon, etc. All of it was hogwash compared to the right of property when they drew up this place. What an idiotic ruling.

Goofball, there isn't anyone I've met yet who doesn't disagree with that stupid decision. Anyway, old story but one I love hearing about everytime. Thanks, Souter.

**Papewaio** · 01-26-2006, 01:21

Originally Posted by Goofball

The idea that somebody can take your house away in order to make money for themselves, just because it would also happen to benefit others, is tyrannical.

It sounds like the worst case scenario of taking all the worst in capitalism and communism.

So instead of the state taking your house away for the benefits of others, it is some shopping mall taking away your house for the benefits of others...

**Goofball** · 01-26-2006, 01:23

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Goofball, there isn't anyone I've met yet who doesn't disagree with that stupid decision.

You used all of those negatives just to confuse me, didn't you?

I had to read it 5 times to figure out if you were agreeing or disagreeing with me.

In the end, I believe you aren't disagreeing with me, which doesn't displease me.

**Kaiser of Arabia** · 01-26-2006, 04:32

I think she was agreeing with you.

BTW I'd so stay at that hotel.

**Proletariat** · 01-26-2006, 23:52

Originally Posted by Goofball

In the end, I believe you aren't disagreeing with me, which doesn't displease me.

Eh, whoops. Some things sound okay if you're speaking but look silly when typed. I seriously don't unapologize.

**AntiochusIII** · 01-27-2006, 06:23

The funny thing is, I'll probably have to both protect and tear apart the Kelo v. New London ruling in the up-and-coming debate tournament for me. Gah, I find it most undesirable to sell eminent domain -- as the public knows it -- to the probably miffed judges who are a little afraid at the possibility of their homes being replaced with shopping malls.

Kaiser, help me think of fear-mongering tactics for its sake! [not really serious]

**Divinus Arma** · 01-27-2006, 15:26

I remember this.

Anybody who thinks this is a conservative court only has to look at this ruling.

**Xiahou** · 01-27-2006, 19:23

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

I remember this.

Anybody who thinks this is a conservative court only has to look at this ruling.

I would further point out that those that are saying conservative judges like Alito only want to expand government power should really look at which justices voted against this ruling and which voted for it.

**Don Corleone** · 01-27-2006, 20:14

I hope like hell this works out and Souter loses his house. Kelo v. New London was an abomination. It is yet one more reason that even though I'm not anti-abortion, Roe v. Wade was bad law and the wrong way to accomplish that particular end. As a precedent, it has unleashed a flood of "The constitution says whatever 5 of us say it does" rulings from SCOTUS.