Supreme Court is out of control

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 21:47:37 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>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...le/archive/200
>>> 5/01/25/MNGIMAVRML1.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.
>
> Much as I hate this idea, the Nation has an interest in doing
> _something_ about the damn NIMBYs. One guy on TV said they had
> ultimately offered him $150K for a house you could see, as he was
> standing beside it, was clearly not worth $150K. He was just holding
> out for a jackpot at the public's expense. While condo's and shopping
> malls may or may not be the sort of public interest that the founding
> fathers had in mind, the right of way for a high speed rail's
> consortium _is_, and the current thinking seeems to be that _nothing_
> can be built in the way of HS rail because of the NIMBYs. Well, maybe
> the Nation can progress now... maybe we can have HS rail even if it
> is done with private money.
>
> Dave Head
>

At least HS rail would be for public USE,not public "benefit",which is NOT
what the Amendment says.

Redefining "public use" to mean "public benefit" allows local governments
to have -unlimited- eminent domain power,exactly the opposite of what the
Founders intended;to -limit- the eminent domain power of gov't,protecting
the citizens property rights.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article >,
Dave Head > wrote:
>
>Much as I hate this idea, the Nation has an interest in doing _something_ about
>the damn NIMBYs. One guy on TV said they had ultimately offered him $150K for
>a house you could see, as he was standing beside it, was clearly not worth
>$150K. He was just holding out for a jackpot at the public's expense. While
>condo's and shopping malls may or may not be the sort of public interest that
>the founding fathers had in mind, the right of way for a high speed rail's
>consortium _is_, and the current thinking seeems to be that _nothing_ can be
>built in the way of HS rail because of the NIMBYs. Well, maybe the Nation can
>progress now... maybe we can have HS rail even if it is done with private
>money.

Cue "The Simpson's" monorail music.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> Dave Head > wrote:

>>Much as I hate this idea, the Nation has an interest in doing _something_ about
>>the damn NIMBYs. One guy on TV said they had ultimately offered him $150K for
>>a house you could see, as he was standing beside it, was clearly not worth
>>$150K. He was just holding out for a jackpot at the public's expense. While
>>condo's and shopping malls may or may not be the sort of public interest that
>>the founding fathers had in mind, the right of way for a high speed rail's
>>consortium _is_, and the current thinking seeems to be that _nothing_ can be
>>built in the way of HS rail because of the NIMBYs. Well, maybe the Nation can
>>progress now... maybe we can have HS rail even if it is done with private
>>money.

> Cue "The Simpson's" monorail music.

But main street's all cracked and broken.

DTJ wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2005 23:11:16 -0700, wrote:
>
> snip of MAJORITY of ignorant incorrect post...

I notice that you can't actually *refute* it. Calling it incorrect
doesn't mean anything. It must be that conservative logic again...

> >Conservatives used to believe that black people were less than human.
>
> Uh huh. That would explain why we fought to end slavery.

We? You weren't born yet, sonny. Your knowledge of history is
****-poor - in those days, folks in the Democratic party were the
conservatives, and the Republicans were liberal.

But hey, nowadays, I think you'll find that most folks who harbor
racist ideas are card-carrying Republicans.

Now, go read up a little on your history before you show your ass
again.

E.P.

Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> Uh,the vote was 5-4,not unanimous.
> It appears that at least 4 USSC Justices still obey the Constitution.
>
> This is what the US People get for electing socialist Presidents who select
> socialist USSC "Justices".

Better get out the *big* boots, Yanik; you stepped into a deep pile
this time.

The fact of the matter is, only *two* of the current justices were
nominated by anyone you'd consider a 'socialist' - both by Clinton.
The other seven (including the *majority* of that majority) were
appointees of such socialists as GHW Bush, Gerald Ford, and your
almighty Ron Reagan.

IMO, it seems that cons smarten up when there's no longer any ass to be
kissed in order to stay in office - as with a lifetime judicial
appointment. So what we get is justices appointed by such luminaries
as Dick Nixon who turn out to be *your* worst nightmares. F'rinstance,
now there might be some neocon developer eyeing *your* neighborhood for
a nice econoomic booster for *everybody else* in your town. So you
gotta leave. I think it's hilarious.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Living in a place nobody wants)

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Motorhead Lawyer wrote:

> IMO, it seems that cons smarten up when there's no longer any ass to be
> kissed in order to stay in office - as with a lifetime judicial
> appointment. So what we get is justices appointed by such luminaries as
> Dick Nixon who turn out to be *your* worst nightmares. F'rinstance, now
> there might be some neocon developer eyeing *your* neighborhood for a
> nice econoomic booster for *everybody else* in your town. So you gotta
> leave. I think it's hilarious.

You're not the only one.

Have a look:
http://www.freestarmedia.com/index.html
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=45029

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
>
> We? You weren't born yet, sonny. Your knowledge of history is
> ****-poor - in those days, folks in the Democratic party were the
> conservatives, and the Republicans were liberal.

Cite.

>
> But hey, nowadays, I think you'll find that most folks who harbor
> racist ideas are card-carrying Republicans.

Cite

>
> Now, go read up a little on your history before you show your ass
> again.
>
> E.P.

Let me see if I understand this. J.C. Watts, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell,
Clarence Thomas (the list goes on and on) are all racist?

Your assertions are quite over the top. I'm not a registered Republican.
But those I know are not nearly as you seem to believe they are. Do you
have sources that back up these assertions. I don't believe that they are
at all true.

Motorhead Lawyer wrote:
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>>Uh,the vote was 5-4,not unanimous.
>>It appears that at least 4 USSC Justices still obey the Constitution.
>>
>>This is what the US People get for electing socialist Presidents who select
>>socialist USSC "Justices".
>
>
> Better get out the *big* boots, Yanik; you stepped into a deep pile
> this time.
>
> The fact of the matter is, only *two* of the current justices were
> nominated by anyone you'd consider a 'socialist' - both by Clinton.
> The other seven (including the *majority* of that majority) were
> appointees of such socialists as GHW Bush, Gerald Ford, and your
> almighty Ron Reagan.
>
> IMO, it seems that cons smarten up when there's no longer any ass to be
> kissed in order to stay in office - as with a lifetime judicial
> appointment. So what we get is justices appointed by such luminaries
> as Dick Nixon who turn out to be *your* worst nightmares. F'rinstance,
> now there might be some neocon developer eyeing *your* neighborhood for
> a nice econoomic booster for *everybody else* in your town. So you
> gotta leave. I think it's hilarious.
> --
> C.R. Krieger
> (Living in a place nobody wants)
>

Hilarious, loss-of-bowel-control frightening, there's a fine line
separating the two. Having a dark sense of humor helps when reading the
news these days.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:36:06 -0400, "James C. Reeves"
> wrote:

>> We? You weren't born yet, sonny. Your knowledge of history is
>> ****-poor - in those days, folks in the Democratic party were the
>> conservatives, and the Republicans were liberal.
>
>Cite.
>>
>> But hey, nowadays, I think you'll find that most folks who harbor
>> racist ideas are card-carrying Republicans.
>
>Cite
>>
>> Now, go read up a little on your history before you show your ass
>> again.
>>
>> E.P.
>Let me see if I understand this. J.C. Watts, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell,
>Clarence Thomas (the list goes on and on) are all racist?
>
>Your assertions are quite over the top. I'm not a registered Republican.
>But those I know are not nearly as you seem to believe they are. Do you
>have sources that back up these assertions. I don't believe that they are
>at all true.

Why do you bother replying to a troll? This idiot is attempting to
cause political fights in a driving group. I say everyone should kill
filter him like I did and get on with life. We know he is wrong, but
I doubt anyone can convince him, he has no brains.

Of course, please feel free to plonk or not plonk as you see fit...

James C. Reeves wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > We? You weren't born yet, sonny. Your knowledge of history is
> > ****-poor - in those days, folks in the Democratic party were the
> > conservatives, and the Republicans were liberal.
>
> Cite.

Think just a second - Can you remember why the Civil War was fought?
Does the name each party takes have anything to do with their founding
philosophy? Has the focus of either party changed in the last 100
years?

Do your own homework.

> > But hey, nowadays, I think you'll find that most folks who harbor
> > racist ideas are card-carrying Republicans.
>
> Cite

This is called "personal experience". Liberal people are less likely
to be racist. While that may be an uncomfortable fact for some
enlightened conservatives, it's true.

Do you think those guys in North Idaho were members of the ACLU? Think
about it.

> > Now, go read up a little on your history before you show your ass
> > again.
> >
> > E.P.
>
> Let me see if I understand this. J.C. Watts, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell,
> Clarence Thomas (the list goes on and on) are all racist?

Boy, you surely can't read. Go re-read what I wrote, and quote exactly
where I wrote anything like that.

You can't, because I didn't. Try again.

> Your assertions are quite over the top.

No, they are plain facts. Uncomfortable, or not well-known, but
absolutely true. Now, if you think that you can disprove what I've
said, either with different facts, or sound logic, be my guest.

E.P.