1
   

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

 
 
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 10:31 am
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,748 • Replies: 64
No top replies

 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 11:26 am
When they come to take away my property they better show up well armed.
0 Replies
 
joeljkp
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 11:32 am
cjhsa wrote:
When they come to take away my property they better show up well armed.


Yeah, right. Gimme a call when you stand up to them with guns, I wanna see it.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 11:43 am
Bob, I'm glad you posted this. Folks from all over need to see what is happening to everyone's rights here in the U.S. This country was founded on private property and the ownership thereof. It's contentious enough when the state claims under imminent domain, but for the Supreme Court to sanction seizing property in the name of MONEY is really scary.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 11:46 am
things have come to a(n un)pretty pass when i find myself on the same side of a ruling as Clarence Thomas. Sad
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 11:49 am
joeljkp wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
When they come to take away my property they better show up well armed.


Yeah, right. Gimme a call when you stand up to them with guns, I wanna see it.


Check my profile.
0 Replies
 
bobsmythhawk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 11:53 am
Hi Letty:

This is really serious hence my reason for posting. Picture some blithe spirit having just having plunked down everything he owns to get a good home for wife and kids only to have a rich developer convince the local board they need that area for "affordable" housing. Gone. In the blink of an eye. All his dreams.
The other area to worry about is evaluations. Yesterdays $750,000 house may suddenly become regarded as worth $375,000. Suddenly it's not a seller's market anymore. There are lots of ramifications.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 12:00 pm
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 12:01 pm
Isn't this basically what happened when Bush wanted his ballpark in Texas?

Isn't this also the basic right we just gave up with the passage of the recent homeland security bill allowing Homeland security to take property as it sees fit for protecting our country?

I, too, am shocked to be in agreement with Thomas and Scalia!!!

But, it isn't the first time it's happened. (Land seizure for corporate benefit, not my agreeing with Thomas and Scalia. Pretty sure THAT is a first.) Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 12:06 pm
cjhsa, this is the work of the government that you , unca Ted and your buddies elected and support. If the supremes rule to put bush in that's okay, but when the same supremes rule to give bush and his boys unlimited power to f**k with you you want to fight. Yoiu asked for it buddy, and now you're going to start getting it. Quit whining.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 12:11 pm
The old argument that SCOTUS elected the president is hogwash and you know it. Plus W hasn't appointed a single judge. I reserve my right to criticize stupidity when I see it.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 12:25 pm
DVT/BP, you may be interested in the exact same discussion going on in a thread on this other board:

http://nugeboard.tednugent.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/220639.html
0 Replies
 
joeljkp
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 12:27 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
cjhsa, this is the work of the government that you , unca Ted and your buddies elected and support. If the supremes rule to put bush in that's okay, but when the same supremes rule to give bush and his boys unlimited power to f**k with you you want to fight. Yoiu asked for it buddy, and now you're going to start getting it. Quit whining.


What a completely asinine comment. Of the 5 that agreed to the ruling, 2 were Clinton appointees, 1 was Ford, 1 was Bush, and 1 was Reagan. In fact, the ones that wrote up the concurrance for the Bush v. Gore case were the exact ones that dissented on this opinion. Basically, you're ignorant.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 12:30 pm
joeljkp wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
cjhsa, this is the work of the government that you , unca Ted and your buddies elected and support. If the supremes rule to put bush in that's okay, but when the same supremes rule to give bush and his boys unlimited power to f**k with you you want to fight. Yoiu asked for it buddy, and now you're going to start getting it. Quit whining.


What a completely asinine comment. Of the 5 that agreed to the ruling, 2 were Clinton appointees, 1 was Ford, 1 was Bush, and 1 was Reagan. In fact, the ones that wrote up the concurrance for the Bush v. Gore case were the exact ones that dissented on this opinion. Basically, you're ignorant.


Oh my god how you've hurt me with that name. I hope no one decides they need a mall or a convention center near your home. Actually I couldn't care less. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 12:31 pm
cjhsa wrote:
The old argument that SCOTUS elected the president is hogwash and you know it. Plus W hasn't appointed a single judge. I reserve my right to criticize stupidity when I see it.


I do not believe it to be hogwash nor do many millions of other Americans bud. bush is not my president. He's just been sitting in his chair. I don't harp on it, but I'll never forget it.
0 Replies
 
bobsmythhawk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 12:42 pm
Hey cjhsa. Thanks for that link. It confirms even more lucidly the possibility of local governments abusing the intent of the Constitution with naturally OUR governments blessings. I can only imagine how many forums be it internet or verbal there are going on throughout the nation. I'd be willing to bet that realtors are all wringing their hands at the prospect of lost sales since they're now selling goods with no guarantee.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 12:43 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
I do not believe it to be hogwash nor do many millions of other Americans bud. bush is not my president. He's just been sitting in his chair. I don't harp on it, but I'll never forget it.


You mean the ones I see everyday with the Kerry/Edwards stickers keeping the bumper from falling off their POS Volvo?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 12:47 pm
maybe, and more, what's your point? I personally know a lot of people with bush 2004 stickers on their SUV's who have had enough of this ass clown on Pennsylvania Ave. as well since you seem to want to steer the conversation that way.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 12:49 pm
Bob, Ah, yes. I didn't think about the fall out from the devaluing of property. That, too, is a concern.

Look, folks. It doesn't matter who appointed who. Just pretend that you know nothing of the back ground of the justices, and then evaluate it from there.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 12:50 pm
This is hardly a new issue for me. As the owner of waterfront property on Lake Michigan, the government can change the value of my property, even condemn it, by raising or lowering the lake level. This just gives them more ammo to do so.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/27/2021 at 08:48:12