There are not emoticons to describe just how much the United States Supreme court made me want to go Elvis on the TV in the break room. When you heard judges saying we need to consider international law, those same judges have just spit in the eye of international English common law property rights going to the Magna Carta.
With the exception of Justice Scalia these are the same 5 who ruled Pot that isn’t shipped over state lines and in some cases isn’t even sold is governed by the Interstate commerce act. This judicial fiat pretty much says “Hey we’re bigger then you, and we can do what we want.”
As my buddy mark likes to say, we don't have a justice system we have a legal system
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
And this BENEFIT for the community is so much more beneficial when the property is stolen and people get to buy it at special rates.
This action is utterly obscene, and when the more “liberal” justices on the court were the core of this it really shows you what they think of America.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In short lets steal from the Poor, to help the Rich.
this action is utterly insane... and i am glad to see Justice Scalia back on the reservation for sanity.
the Commisar has a round up of people who work places where blogging isn't prohibited by IS or who were lucky enough to be home
Congress needs to do something about this... NOW
No comments:
Post a Comment