Good heavens!

Could it be that the current government thinks that individual
liberties, personal and property rights, and even constitutional rights
like due process can and should be suppressed in favor of the "public
good"?

Could it be that private developers who own enough politicians (or
select politicians) can pressure the government to condemn your house,
land, or business and turn the property over to their development
cartel so they can put up a shopping mall or build some condos? That's
awful. We should look into this, and repudiate any politicians so
blatantly pro-business.

Thanks for posting this. I always suspected you were a patriot. :-)

wrote in message
oups.com...
Good heavens!

Could it be that the current government thinks that individual
liberties, personal and property rights, and even constitutional rights
like due process can and should be suppressed in favor of the "public
good"?

Could it be that 4 of the 5 justices who supported this opinion are liberals
who supported Gore in in 2000?

Could it be that liberals don't believe in private property, and the rights
of the individual? Of course, that's what happens in a socialistic
society...so this ruling makes sense considering who voted for it.





Could it be that private developers who own enough politicians (or
select politicians) can pressure the government to condemn your house,
land, or business and turn the property over to their development
cartel so they can put up a shopping mall or build some condos? That's
awful. We should look into this, and repudiate any politicians so
blatantly pro-business.

Thanks for posting this. I always suspected you were a patriot. :-)


And thanks for falling into my trap. ;-)

I knew I could count on the lefties on the forum to be the first ones
condemning the ruling.

And I knew you guys would be a little shocked to learn that it was the
liberal Supreme Court justices who supported it!

And I knew you guys would be a little shocked to learn that it was the
liberal Supreme Court justices who supported it!


**********

How many of the mega-huge private development corporations that will
*benefit* from the ruling
are likely run by "liberals"?

The issue isn't whether the ruling was voted for by liberal or
conservative justices, the issue is that the government now says its OK
for a private developer to pressure local politicians to boot you out
of your home or business, and that doing so is OK if the politician can
make a case that the private developer's use of your land would be
better for the "public good."

This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society
during the last several years.

Condeming private property for the purpose of awarding it to another
private owner is pure BS regardless of the political bent of he
justices that supported it. Carried to extremes, every time the Repubs
lose power, some Democratic developer can roll into Naples and get the
government to condemn properties belonging to local Republicans,
(thereby weakening the opposition's political base). You'd have to wait
until the R's got back in power again before you could pressure the new
government to yank property back from the usurping D's. Very, very bad
system.

Eisenhower looks smarter all the time- "Beware the military/industrial
complex." I think of those words every time I read something more about
Haliburton and Iraq. He should also have said, "Beware the rapacious
government, private developer complex."

FUBAR government is FUBAR government, regardless of the party at fault.

wrote in message
oups.com...
And I knew you guys would be a little shocked to learn that it was the
liberal Supreme Court justices who supported it!


**********

How many of the mega-huge private development corporations that will
*benefit* from the ruling
are likely run by "liberals"?

The issue isn't whether the ruling was voted for by liberal or
conservative justices, the issue is that the government now says its OK
for a private developer to pressure local politicians to boot you out
of your home or business, and that doing so is OK if the politician can
make a case that the private developer's use of your land would be
better for the "public good."

But for the sake of 4 liberal justices and 1 conservative justice the
*issue* would be moot. So it *is* about how these justices voted.


This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society
during the last several years.

Condeming private property for the purpose of awarding it to another
private owner is pure BS regardless of the political bent of he
justices that supported it.

Glad to hear you say that, even though 4 of the 5 are liberal justices who
apparently want to rewrite the Constitution and take all our rights away
from us.

"*JimH*" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
oups.com...
And I knew you guys would be a little shocked to learn that it was the
liberal Supreme Court justices who supported it!


**********

How many of the mega-huge private development corporations that will
*benefit* from the ruling
are likely run by "liberals"?

The issue isn't whether the ruling was voted for by liberal or
conservative justices, the issue is that the government now says its OK
for a private developer to pressure local politicians to boot you out
of your home or business, and that doing so is OK if the politician can
make a case that the private developer's use of your land would be
better for the "public good."

But for the sake of 4 liberal justices and 1 conservative justice the
*issue* would be moot. So it *is* about how these justices voted.


This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society
during the last several years.

Condeming private property for the purpose of awarding it to another
private owner is pure BS regardless of the political bent of he
justices that supported it.

Glad to hear you say that, even though 4 of the 5 are liberal justices who
apparently want to rewrite the Constitution and take all our rights away
from us.

MSNBC poll has people voting 98% opposed to the ruling, and 2% supporting
it.

The political party that jumps on this ruling first can sure stand to gain a
lot in the next election.

I think I'll send an email to Karl Rove.

*JimH* wrote:

Glad to hear you say that, even though 4 of the 5 are liberal justices who
apparently want to rewrite the Constitution and take all our rights away
from us.

The biggest liar and hypocrite in rec.boats has spoken.

wrote in message
oups.com...

The issue isn't whether the ruling was voted for by liberal or
conservative justices, the issue is that the government now says its OK
for a private developer to pressure local politicians to boot you out
of your home or business, and that doing so is OK if the politician can
make a case that the private developer's use of your land would be
better for the "public good."

Isn't the "public good" a rallying cry for socialists and communists?




This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society
during the last several years.

No it's not. Erosion of private rights in order to protect individuals from
harm is a lot different from erosion of private rights in order to collect
more in property taxes.




Condeming private property for the purpose of awarding it to another
private owner is pure BS regardless of the political bent of he
justices that supported it.

I agree. And if you and I agree on a topic, then passing a bipartisan bill
in Congress should be easy as pie.

Isn't the "public good" a rallying cry for socialists and communists?

**********

I don't think so, but it has long been the justification for hauling
people off to gulags and concentration camps and holding or punishing
folks without trial.


************


This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society
during the last several years.



No it's not. Erosion of private rights in order to protect individuals
from
harm is a lot different from erosion of private rights in order to
collect
more in property taxes.

*******

In the long run, there is no greater "harm" than the abridgement of
rights.
"People who will trade freedom for security deserve to be neither
secure nor free."

NOYB wrote:

Isn't the "public good" a rallying cry for socialists and communists?

Kind of like we went to war with Iraq for public good? We formed
Homeland Security for public good.




This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society
during the last several years.

No it's not. Erosion of private rights in order to protect individuals from
harm is a lot different from erosion of private rights in order to collect
more in property taxes.

Have to agree with that! The actions we are talking about are nothing
but another way to make revenue.

Condeming private property for the purpose of awarding it to another
private owner is pure BS regardless of the political bent of he
justices that supported it.

I agree. And if you and I agree on a topic, then passing a bipartisan bill
in Congress should be easy as pie.

Nah, politicians are a different lot.

wrote in message
oups.com...
And I knew you guys would be a little shocked to learn that it was the
liberal Supreme Court justices who supported it!


**********

How many of the mega-huge private development corporations that will
*benefit* from the ruling
are likely run by "liberals"?

The issue isn't whether the ruling was voted for by liberal or
conservative justices, the issue is that the government now says its OK
for a private developer to pressure local politicians to boot you out
of your home or business, and that doing so is OK if the politician can
make a case that the private developer's use of your land would be
better for the "public good."

There is no more private property in the US. You just get to occupy it until
someone else wants it.