• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Eminent Domain Case ****ing avg. Americans again!!!!

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Through the Keno v New London decision by leftist judges on the Supreme Court supported by liberal congressmen and women have now allowed for the condemnation of peoples homes living in a mostly urban industrialized area inhabited by blue collar African Americans to build a yaght club.

As one woman put it: "The way I see it they feel that the view is to good for me and should be given to million aires."

fuq this **** this is a clear cut case of unconstitutional decisions by the Supreme Court so that big government can make more money viva le revolution anyone???

Here's the link to the full story:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ov29,1,7251814.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
There a reason you had to turn it into an attack on liberals? I have yet to see a single person on this site, liberal or conservative, who agrees with the Supreme Court's decision.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Kelzie said:
There a reason you had to turn it into an attack on liberals? I have yet to see a single person on this site, liberal or conservative, who agrees with the Supreme Court's decision.
It was the liberal judges on the courts that produced that abominable decision. Why shouldn't the people supporting the appointment of even more such criminals be tarred with the responsibility?

On the other hand, and no one hijack this thread with this, it was the block of so-called "conservative" judges that ruled that Jose Padilla, a US citizen arrested on US soil can be held forever and a day without arraignment or trial, on the mere say so of some bureaucrat that he's a terrorist threat.

What we need are judges that can read the Constitution and apply it consistently.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes. Damnable liberal judges of whom only two were appointed by a liberal.
Stevens=Ford
Kennedy=Reagan
Souter=HW Bush
Ginsburg =Clinton
Breyer=Clinton
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
shuamort said:
Yes. Damnable liberal judges of whom only two were appointed by a liberal.
Stevens=Ford
Kennedy=Reagan
Souter=HW Bush
Ginsburg =Clinton
Breyer=Clinton
Unfortunately, those conservative appointed judges were the best we could get through at the time. We thought they would be conservative enough to rule against an idiotic decision like this one, but we were wrong, and we got burned. Clingon got what he wanted in a judge though, probably a little more than he wanted honestly.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
shuamort said:
Yes. Damnable liberal judges of whom only two were appointed by a liberal.
Stevens=Ford
Kennedy=Reagan
Souter=HW Bush
Ginsburg =Clinton
Breyer=Clinton
I deliberately omitted that list because I don't think it's relevant. The only "surprise" on that list is Souter, who, if I recall, walked and talked like a man who respected the Constitution until he was appointed to a lifetime job where he could rape it at will.

BTW, Ford was a liberal, so was Bush (who signed the American with Disabilities Act? The Save My Neighbors Swamp Act? Who raised taxes?)

And if Bork hadn't been borked, the only Kennedy in the public eye would be the "Drown my drunk girlfriend" Kennedy.

Question:
Do you agree or disagree that judges are supposed to interpret the Constitution as it was intended to mean?

Or do you believe that the Constitution is a living document, something akin to TP?
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
shuamort said:
Yes. Damnable liberal judges of whom only two were appointed by a liberal.
Stevens=Ford
Kennedy=Reagan
Souter=HW Bush
Ginsburg =Clinton
Breyer=Clinton
Please tell me were the Congresses that confirmed the presidential S.C. nominees Republican or Democraticly dominated?
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Through the Keno v New London decision by leftist judges on the Supreme Court supported by liberal congressmen and women have now allowed for the condemnation of peoples homes living in a mostly urban industrialized area inhabited by blue collar African Americans to build a yaght club.

As one woman put it: "The way I see it they feel that the view is to good for me and should be given to million aires."

fuq this **** this is a clear cut case of unconstitutional decisions by the Supreme Court so that big government can make more money viva le revolution anyone???

Here's the link to the full story:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation
Seems as though conservatives think this is the "smoking gun" in the case that all conservatives are allowed to act self riteous and we liberals try and trick black people into voting democrat or something. My question for you. How so?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Question:
Do you agree or disagree that judges are supposed to interpret the Constitution as it was intended to mean?

Or do you believe that the Constitution is a living document, something akin to TP?
I believe in the 200+ years of country history under the 1803 SCOTUS decision of Marbury v. Madison. Literalism coupled with disregarding precedent is a relatively new concept.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Please tell me were the Congresses that confirmed the presidential S.C. nominees Republican or Democraticly dominated?
After you show me where in the constitution that they are the ones who appoint the nominee instead of just approve them.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Eminent Domain is in the Constitution. How come no one is discussing ammending the constitution?
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
shuamort said:
I believe in the 200+ years of country history under the 1803 SCOTUS decision of Marbury v. Madison. Literalism coupled with disregarding precedent is a relatively new concept.

After you show me where in the constitution that they are the ones who appoint the nominee instead of just approve them.
Come on soldier slim it's an easy question Dem or Rep congress??? It's a presidential nomination and a congressional confirmation.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
shuamort said:
I believe in the 200+ years of country history under the 1803 SCOTUS decision of Marbury v. Madison. Literalism coupled with disregarding precedent is a relatively new concept.

After you show me where in the constitution that they are the ones who appoint the nominee instead of just approve them.
Precedents including flawed readings of the Constitution should not be a basis for further interpretation.

Or do you thing Dred Scott and Plessy vs Ferguson and Kelo vs New London were good decisions?
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
stsburns said:
Eminent Domain is in the Constitution. How come no one is discussing ammending the constitution?
Eminent domain was not intended to allow the government to take property from private citizens and give it to other private citizens. Which isn't to say the original concept wasn't flawed. Bush made his fortune by using the government to steal the land to build the Rangers stadium on, for one example.

The last amendment to make it into the Constitution took 200 years. That's why no one's discussing amending the Constitution. First Congress would have to pass the Amendment, then it would have to be ratified by two thirds of the states.

Besides, if we were going to Amend the Constitution, I'd recommend eliminating that judge for life nonsense and a ten year rotation on the entire Federal judiciary. That'd keep things fresh. Right now only God and bullets can get rid of bad judges.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Trajan, do you think anyone is happy with this? This has to be the stupidest thing I've ever read but what annoys me is the way you republicans now get to prance around with joy and act all self riteous. Why is it that I have to be held responsible for the so-called "liberal" judges?
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
Trajan, do you think anyone is happy with this? This has to be the stupidest thing I've ever read but what annoys me is the way you republicans now get to prance around with joy and act all self riteous. Why is it that I have to be held responsible for the so-called "liberal" judges?
did I say you should I said that the liberal judges and liberal congress people who support the decision should be held accountable. and it's not so called liberal it's just the way it is liberals are pro-big government and this is the type of **** that happens when the Government is granted to much power.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
did I say you should I said that the liberal judges and liberal congress people who support the decision should be held accountable. and it's not so called liberal it's just the way it is liberals are pro-big government and this is the type of **** that happens when the Government is granted to much power.
Ah I see. Well I don't agree with you but at least you have an explanation. Thanks.

BTW do you watch Rome, Trajan?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Come on soldier slim it's an easy question Dem or Rep congress??? It's a presidential nomination and a congressional confirmation.
Congress doesn't get to pick who is nominated, do they? Answer: No.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Precedents including flawed readings of the Constitution should not be a basis for further interpretation.

Or do you thing Dred Scott and Plessy vs Ferguson and Kelo vs New London were good decisions?
No, but luckily congress fixed those decisions post hoc. Just as has been proposed with the eminent domain decision. It's activated local governments to ensure their laws protect the citizens.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
shuamort said:
No, but luckily congress fixed those decisions post hoc. Just as has been proposed with the eminent domain decision. It's activated local governments to ensure their laws protect the citizens.

Congress didn't fix the Dredd Scott decision.

It took 60 years of Jim Crow before Plessy vs Ferguson was overturned by Brown vs Board of Education, and then it took another ten years before a totally flawed law called "Civil Rights Act of 1964" was passed by a bi-partisan vote (have to say that because it's a mess both parties should feel guilty for).

Yeah, courts following precedent is such a wonderful thing.

How about that precedent of Roe v Wade? You know, the silly decision that the Tenth Amendment guarantees for all 50 states because 5 or more liberals made a ruling which has absolutely no basis in the Constitution?

The intent of the Constitution is so plain on the eminent domain issue that it's totally absurd that a court would rule the way it did on Kelo vs New London. State and Federal legislatures shouldn't have to be passing legislation to repair a wrong judgement by the court.

The court should not hold precedent as some holy grail and it should be willing to examine each case in terms of the Constitution, not in terms of what other judges ruled 1, 10, or 100 years before.

Clearly the Supreme Court needs some form of reality check, either limited terms or votes of confidence. Not that it matters, becuase no one needs to tell me that no such reforms are ever going to make it through the Amendment process.

So, in a case like Kelo vs New London, I'm totally in support of the man that immediately applied for a eminent domain take over of Souter's property in Connecticut.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Congress didn't fix the Dredd Scott decision.

It took 60 years of Jim Crow before Plessy vs Ferguson was overturned by Brown vs Board of Education, and then it took another ten years before a totally flawed law called "Civil Rights Act of 1964" was passed by a bi-partisan vote (have to say that because it's a mess both parties should feel guilty for).
Like it or not, Dred Scott v Sanford was a legitimate solution. Dred Scott and Brown v Board are not related save for the fact that they deal with race. If we're really talking about Dred, then yes, congress DID fix the decision (coupled with the civil war, of course)


Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yeah, courts following precedent is such a wonderful thing.

How about that precedent of Roe v Wade? You know, the silly decision that the Tenth Amendment guarantees for all 50 states because 5 or more liberals made a ruling which has absolutely no basis in the Constitution?
Basis? We're discussing precedent. Of course, we've been using precedent based rulings for almost as long as the US Constitution has been around. To change this would be to ignore 200 years or legal history.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The intent of the Constitution is so plain on the eminent domain issue that it's totally absurd that a court would rule the way it did on Kelo vs New London. State and Federal legislatures shouldn't have to be passing legislation to repair a wrong judgement by the court.

The court should not hold precedent as some holy grail and it should be willing to examine each case in terms of the Constitution, not in terms of what other judges ruled 1, 10, or 100 years before.
Or in this case, 200 years before in Marbury v Madison. You want to change that? Elect congress folk who would change the laws which would disallow court opinions to be based on precedent.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Clearly the Supreme Court needs some form of reality check, either limited terms or votes of confidence. Not that it matters, becuase no one needs to tell me that no such reforms are ever going to make it through the Amendment process.
I've personally been kicking around the idea that SCOTUS justices should be voted in instead of appointed.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So, in a case like Kelo vs New London, I'm totally in support of the man that immediately applied for a eminent domain take over of Souter's property in Connecticut.
That was amusing.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
shuamort said:
Like it or not, Dred Scott v Sanford was a legitimate solution. Dred Scott and Brown v Board are not related save for the fact that they deal with race. If we're really talking about Dred, then yes, congress DID fix the decision (coupled with the civil war, of course)
No, the Congress didn't fix anything. The civil war was fought because Congress failed utterly. The slaves were freed by presidential edict, leaving the Congress out completely. (And I'm not going to look it up now, but if you show that Congess passed legislation after the Emancipation Proclamation supporting it, I don't know if it would count. ?)

shuamort said:
Basis? We're discussing precedent. Of course, we've been using precedent based rulings for almost as long as the US Constitution has been around. To change this would be to ignore 200 years or legal history.
Precedent shouldn't be employed blindy. Nor should it be established out of tihin air and then followed blindly, as in the Roe V Wade decision. The damn judges are no less human than us, and the Court shouldn't be afraid to say their predecessors had their heads up their collective rectum and made a mistake.

shuamort said:
Or in this case, 200 years before in Marbury v Madison. You want to change that? Elect congress folk who would change the laws which would disallow court opinions to be based on precedent.
That won't happen. 97% of the voters vote for either Democrats or Republicans. None of those people care about the Constitution. That's why this country is so screwed up now.


shuamort said:
I've personally been kicking around the idea that SCOTUS justices should be voted in instead of appointed. [/quoted]

You mean the same people that elected Bush can vote for the judges? Are you really sure that's a good idea?

Personally, I think elections are an anachonism from a time of limited technology. As far as Congressmen go, we'd probably be better off if a computer randomly selected a representative from each district and he had the option to accept or decline the position. Certainly a random slice of America would be far less corrupt than the thugs we have in Washington now. That idea has as much chance of seeing daylight as your.

shuamort said:
That was amusing.
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
 
Top Bottom