|
|
Supreme Court is out of control
Is their goal to crush civil liberties and
stomp on the poor? Lately, they have: - Ruled to ban marijuana for cancer patients - Allowed police to use drug-sniffing dogs to check out any car they stop for a traffic violation http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGIMAVRML1.DTL - And today, they ruled that Cities May Seize Homes (of course, poor peoples' houses, not the mansions of the rich) |
"223rem" > wrote in message m... > Is their goal to crush civil liberties and > stomp on the poor? > > Lately, they have: > > - Ruled to ban marijuana for cancer patients > > - Allowed police to use drug-sniffing dogs to check out > any car they stop for a traffic violation > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGIMAVRML1.DTL > > - And today, they ruled that Cities May Seize Homes > (of course, poor peoples' houses, not the mansions of the rich) Finish the story. The supreme idiots ruled that Cities may seize peoples' homes under 'eminent domain' for such "public" uses as condominiums, beachfront resort/hotels, housing developments (never mind that they tore one down to build a new one). Oh, and the ruling further states that it doesn't matter what condition the seized houses are in. Buy a 10-year-old house in perfect condition one day, it can be seized and torn down the next. Of course, you will be paid 50% of it's fair market value for your inconvenience. Never mind that you paid 100% of it's fair market value, or that you might still owe more than the city paid you for it. -Dave |
"Dave C." > wrote in message enews.net... > > "223rem" > wrote in message > m... >> Is their goal to crush civil liberties and >> stomp on the poor? >> >> Lately, they have: >> >> - Ruled to ban marijuana for cancer patients >> >> - Allowed police to use drug-sniffing dogs to check out >> any car they stop for a traffic violation >> > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGIMAVRML1.DTL >> >> - And today, they ruled that Cities May Seize Homes >> (of course, poor peoples' houses, not the mansions of the rich) > > Finish the story. The supreme idiots ruled that Cities may seize peoples' > homes under 'eminent domain' for such "public" uses as condominiums, > beachfront resort/hotels, housing developments (never mind that they tore > one down to build a new one). Oh, and the ruling further states that it > doesn't matter what condition the seized houses are in. Buy a 10-year-old > house in perfect condition one day, it can be seized and torn down the > next. > Of course, you will be paid 50% of it's fair market value for your > inconvenience. Never mind that you paid 100% of it's fair market value, > or > that you might still owe more than the city paid you for it. -Dave > This is a stupid ruling that should get bipartisan support in congress and senate to act. As someone was saying, any business will bring in more tax revenue than a home. We are all at risk (especially the folks that own homes around lakes, rivers or other scenic locales). I dont think there is a single democrat, republican and libertarian that would agree with this ruling unless they have something personal to gain by it. |
In article > , 223rem wrote:
> Is their goal to crush civil liberties and stomp on the poor? To make us poor, to rule over us with complete power. > Lately, they have: > > - Ruled to ban marijuana for cancer patients > > - Allowed police to use drug-sniffing dogs to check out > any car they stop for a traffic violation > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGIMAVRML1.DTL > > - And today, they ruled that Cities May Seize Homes > (of course, poor peoples' houses, not the mansions of the rich) The rich have the resources to fight government, the poor do not. Example, two expressway projects yet to get off the ground. The northern extension of IL53 and the extension of I355 (really the same expressway at different ends) On the north end, the rich still live in their homes are are still fighting the development. In the south, the not rich were moved out and their homes destroyed years ago. In any case, the paranoia I have been accused of is coming to pass. |
In article >, Dan J.S. wrote:
> This is a stupid ruling that should get bipartisan support in congress and > senate to act. As someone was saying, any business will bring in more tax > revenue than a home. We are all at risk (especially the folks that own homes > around lakes, rivers or other scenic locales). I dont think there is a > single democrat, republican and libertarian that would agree with this > ruling unless they have something personal to gain by it. I don't see any reason for either Ds or Rs to oppose this. They benefit from it. They are in power. They get the control over people's property. There are a number of angles. The first is that of dependence. Now elections may determine wether or not the government takes you home. That's a great way to hold on to or gain power. Also, **** off government and you could find your home taken. It's power. Now there are the favors and such this offers up. Now someone seeking office can promise a backer someone else's property as compensation for support in an election. The same can be done to reward friends and punish enemies. Outright monitary profit for government has already been mentioned. Now that aside, there are forces on the left that wish to dictate what people can do with their property or just outright take control of it in the name of the collective. That they know what is best and should determine land use for everyone else and who gets to live where. I would assume there are similiar control freaks on the right who may operate under different motivations for the same result. Ones who would like to see the return of such things as corporate owned housing etc that basically make the worker forever dependent upon the company like a slave. |
"223rem" > wrote in message m... > Is their goal to crush civil liberties and > stomp on the poor? > > Lately, they have: > > - Ruled to ban marijuana for cancer patients > > - Allowed police to use drug-sniffing dogs to check out > any car they stop for a traffic violation > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGIMAVRML1.DTL That's nothing new. We've always been allowed to run our dogs around any car for any reason because the air around a person's car is public. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. |
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 21:22:54 -0500, Dan J.S. , said the following in
rec.autos.driving... <snip> > This is a stupid ruling that should get bipartisan support in congress and > senate to act. Don't count on it. > As someone was saying, any business will bring in more tax > revenue than a home. We are all at risk (especially the folks that own homes > around lakes, rivers or other scenic locales). Especially if the rich get a desire for your property in a scenic locale. IIRC, didn't the planned development in new london include "upscale (translation: rich people only) housing?" What a nice way to get all that riff-raff off their precious waterfront. > I dont think there is a > single democrat, republican and libertarian that would agree with this > ruling unless they have something personal to gain by it. I'm sure the dems and the repubs just love that ruling as it increases government's power so that they can use it to further their agendas (more govermnent control for the dems, make sure no riff-raff stands in the way of business for the repubs). Of course, if the Libertarians are true to their professed philosophy, they are as sickened by this ruling as the rest of us are... -- Paul Self-appointed official overseer of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving |
Dave C. wrote: > > Finish the story. The supreme idiots ruled that Cities may seize peoples' > homes under 'eminent domain' for such "public" uses as condominiums, > beachfront resort/hotels, housing developments (never mind that they tore > one down to build a new one). Oh, and the ruling further states that it > doesn't matter what condition the seized houses are in. Buy a 10-year-old > house in perfect condition one day, it can be seized and torn down the next. > Of course, you will be paid 50% of it's fair market value for your > inconvenience. Never mind that you paid 100% of it's fair market value, or > that you might still owe more than the city paid you for it. -Dave The Supremes are not idiots. They know exactly what they're doing. People need to realize that our govt and both political parties don't give two ****s about ordinary americans. Democracy is a hoax and has been for decades. |
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:12:53 -0400, Alex Rodriguez , said the following
in rec.autos.driving... > > I wonder if it was the same idiots for the dog sniffing who voted for the > seizure of property? Probablly. Those 9 senile old idiots have been there for quite a while. -- Paul Self-appointed unofficial overseer of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
AutoBanter.com