You therefore think that it's OK for the Supreme Court to abrogate state laws when said laws don't violate the Constitution?
Inquiring minds want to know.
If the people in a particular state want their laws changed, they can do it, you know. It takes time and sustained effort, but it can be done. If people aren't willing to work for it, chances are it isn't that important to them.
Has anyone interviewed the other residents of the neighborhood, the ones who took the money? Ill will is a matter of proportion. If 10 families own property in a neighborhood and 7 of them fight, that's a problem. If 100 families own property in a neighborhood and 7 of them fight, the problem is a lot smaller.
Current Events » in reply to Tell that to the people in CT...
So we can get it on the record:
The whole thread (90 posts)
- CNN: "High court OKs personal property seizures"
- I'm hearing that there were a lot of questionable "Eminent Domain" actions that are now proceeding because of this decision.
- High Court Justices' Property at Risk
- The power of imminent domain...
- The rest of the decision:
- The gist of this decision:
- Odds are good that middle- and lower-class property owners...
- Tell that to the people in CT...
- Also, about lost income, I referred to rental income.
- no income is lost............
- Strange bedfellows
- The issue is the "uniqueness" that is inherent in each piece of real-property
- re: bedfellows
- The Supreme Court is ruling on its authority to abrogate a local law.
- Strange bedfellows
- no income is lost............
- So we can get it on the record:
- Also, about lost income, I referred to rental income.
- Tell that to the people in CT...
- Odds are good that middle- and lower-class property owners...
- Going back to the point that language has meaning and misuse leads to emotional misunderstanding..
- jWow! Scalia and Thomas came down on the side of people!!!
- Sounds like a BAD decision to me.
- re: CNN: "High court OKs personal property seizures"
