Current Events » in reply to The Supreme Court is ruling on its authority to abrogate a local law.

The whole thread (90 posts)

• CNN: "High court OKs personal property seizures" - Larry J - 6/23/2005 6:37:31 PM
  • I'm hearing that there were a lot of questionable "Eminent Domain" actions that are now proceeding because of this decision. - Scott Evil - 6/29/2005 11:03:17 PM
    • Projects like these don't happen at the drop of a hat. - Mary Anne - 6/30/2005 2:39:04 AM
  • High Court Justices' Property at Risk - Lindy - 6/29/2005 2:37:06 AM
    • Ha! - Mary Anne - 6/29/2005 7:43:15 PM
  • The power of imminent domain... - Donald - 6/24/2005 2:35:43 PM
    • The issue is purely a financial one... - Scott Evil - 6/28/2005 1:51:19 PM
    • re: The power of imminent domain... - p - 6/24/2005 2:53:55 PM
      • Redevelopment and urban renewal - Donald - 6/24/2005 3:17:21 PM
        • re: Redevelopment and urban renewal - p - 6/24/2005 3:48:24 PM
  • The rest of the decision: - Mary Anne - 6/24/2005 11:57:10 AM
    • You make an interesting case - Tom Brosz - 6/24/2005 8:44:24 PM
      • Racial issues go directly to equal treatment under the law, clearly a Constitutional issue. - Mary Anne - 6/25/2005 3:16:24 AM
        • Eminent domain itself isn't the main issue. - Tom Brosz - 6/25/2005 5:12:31 AM
          • PS - Mary Anne - 6/25/2005 4:19:44 PM
          • Once more: If you don't like this definition of "public use"... - Mary Anne - 6/25/2005 3:34:25 PM
            • Federalism - Tom Brosz - 6/25/2005 7:15:14 PM
              • The right to privacy is implied in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments. - Mary Anne - 6/25/2005 8:35:08 PM
                • implied?. - Tom Brosz - 6/26/2005 12:34:28 AM
                  • "all which is not expressly permitted, is prohibited"? - alcaray - 6/28/2005 9:57:23 PM
                    • Wow. I like your new attitude. - Tom Brosz - 6/29/2005 7:19:42 PM
                      • Not a new attitude - alcaray - 6/29/2005 10:53:09 PM
                • re: The right to privacy is implied in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments. - gbaikie - 6/26/2005 12:08:31 AM
            • And.... - Fox - 6/25/2005 4:22:53 PM
      • Precisely, my comments - p - 6/24/2005 11:54:06 PM
      • Precisely, my comments - p - 6/24/2005 11:54:02 PM
    • Correction - Mary Anne - 6/24/2005 12:44:11 PM
  • The gist of this decision: - Tom Brosz - 6/24/2005 3:49:23 AM
    • Odds are good that middle- and lower-class property owners... - Mary Anne - 6/24/2005 12:09:33 PM
      • Tell that to the people in CT... - Larry J - 6/24/2005 1:22:14 PM
        • Also, about lost income, I referred to rental income. - Mary Anne - 6/24/2005 8:15:08 PM
          • no income is lost............ - Publius - 6/24/2005 9:58:51 PM
            • Strange bedfellows - Robert - 6/25/2005 7:22:51 PM
              • The issue is the "uniqueness" that is inherent in each piece of real-property - Scott Evil - 6/28/2005 8:03:12 PM
              • re: bedfellows - Publius - 6/26/2005 3:25:45 PM
                • More strange bedfellows - Robert - 6/26/2005 4:28:52 PM
                  • from an iconic liberal......with love, of course - Publius - 6/27/2005 12:56:02 PM
                    • re: from an iconic liberal......with love, of course - Robert - 6/27/2005 9:59:43 PM
                      • Howzit go in fractured Latin....Iligiabus non carborundum... - Publius - 6/28/2005 1:21:27 PM
              • The Supreme Court is ruling on its authority to abrogate a local law. - Mary Anne - 6/25/2005 9:05:55 PM
                • Be careful........ - Publius - 6/28/2005 1:29:37 PM
                • Constitution-parsing - Robert - 6/26/2005 4:13:40 PM
                  • This is going to impact small businessmen adversly. - Scott Evil - 6/28/2005 8:21:18 PM
                  • We can only be squeezed if we let ourselves be squeezed. - Mary Anne - 6/26/2005 5:38:28 PM
                    • The fix is in - Robert - 6/27/2005 10:18:40 PM
                      • Local communities - Mary Anne - 6/28/2005 12:04:09 PM
                        • re: Local communities - Tom Brosz - 6/28/2005 6:58:15 PM
                          • The current model for your suggestion: - Mary Anne - 6/28/2005 7:09:52 PM
                            • re: The current model for your suggestion: - Tom Brosz - 6/28/2005 9:39:20 PM
                    • A nice sentiment for local control of our lives. - Tom Brosz - 6/26/2005 10:37:28 PM
                      • Suppose a local (municipal, county or state) government enacts universal single-payer health care. - Mary Anne - 6/27/2005 2:38:29 AM
                • Spelling error: jurisdictional. (n/t) - Mary Anne - 6/25/2005 9:09:47 PM
        • So we can get it on the record: - Mary Anne - 6/24/2005 8:11:43 PM
          • Let me see if I understand you... - Larry J - 6/24/2005 9:50:35 PM
            • an amicus curiae contribution......... - Publius - 6/28/2005 1:53:35 PM
            • If the law so allows, yes. - Mary Anne - 6/25/2005 3:19:07 AM
              • Bad laws have allowed a lot of things.... - Larry J - 6/27/2005 12:46:53 AM
                • I didn't say it was easy. I said it was simple. - Mary Anne - 6/27/2005 2:35:23 AM
                  • It seems this article was written with you in mind - Larry J - 6/27/2005 1:32:19 PM
                    • So what do you suggest? Go to the Supreme Court with torches and axes? - Mary Anne - 6/28/2005 12:16:49 PM
                      • Naive - Larry J - 6/28/2005 1:03:06 PM
                        • What do you think prompts legislative action? - Mary Anne - 6/28/2005 7:04:41 PM
                          • Answer - Larry J - 6/29/2005 12:37:48 PM
                            • I've done political activism... - Mary Anne - 6/29/2005 8:01:14 PM
                              • You're both right. - Tom Brosz - 6/29/2005 8:24:27 PM
          • "Violate the Constitution" has become an amazingly flexible concept. - Tom Brosz - 6/24/2005 8:53:51 PM
            • I seriously doubt the Framers intended to free the slaves, either. - Mary Anne - 6/25/2005 3:23:52 AM
              • Some would have liked to. - Tom Brosz - 6/25/2005 6:58:56 AM
                • Kings? - Mary Anne - 6/25/2005 10:42:47 PM
                  • re: Kings? - gbaikie - 6/26/2005 11:39:37 PM
                    • re: Kings? - gbaikie - 6/26/2005 11:55:01 PM
                      • A description of backlash - Mary Anne - 6/27/2005 2:41:20 AM
                        • re: A description of backlash - gbaikie - 6/27/2005 4:24:52 AM
  • Going back to the point that language has meaning and misuse leads to emotional misunderstanding.. - Publius - 6/23/2005 9:08:10 PM
    • Your meaning, not universally accepted - phil - 6/23/2005 10:06:03 PM
      • not my meaning--just the law - Publius - 6/24/2005 1:44:41 AM
        • re: not my meaning--just the law - p - 6/24/2005 2:17:17 AM
  • jWow! Scalia and Thomas came down on the side of people!!! - Bowser - 6/23/2005 8:32:12 PM
    • It is generally the leftists who are statists - David F Mayer - 6/30/2005 9:18:52 PM
    • Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas as well - Lindy - 6/24/2005 4:51:11 AM
      • Landlords - Mary Anne - 6/24/2005 12:38:09 PM
      • Can anyone say H-A-L-I-B-U-R-T-O-N? Only those who scream against putting conservatives on the bench. - Lee - 6/24/2005 6:09:29 AM
  • Sounds like a BAD decision to me. - David F Mayer - 6/23/2005 7:18:06 PM
    • While congress was busy safeguarding your library records, the govt siezed your private property (n/t) - p - 6/23/2005 7:52:58 PM
  • re: CNN: "High court OKs personal property seizures" - p - 6/23/2005 7:15:50 PM
    • Gee, sounds to me like........ - Publius - 6/24/2005 1:48:38 AM
      • Public good (established law) vs benefit for a private company - p - 6/24/2005 2:23:45 AM
        • In the case you site....... - Publius - 6/24/2005 12:58:08 PM
        • Why does it have to be a corporation? - Lee - 6/24/2005 6:14:15 AM
          • It can't be for private taking. - Mary Anne - 6/24/2005 12:25:00 PM