Supreme Court Ruling = New Amerika

[Surfrider]

I saw the funniest thing on the news yesterday, of course I was half asleep when I saw it.

I guess some of the people in New Hampshire are trying to get the town council or local lawmakers to eminent domain Justice Souter's home there.  This would be classic.  I try to find a link to an article talking about it.

[Surfrider]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8406056/

WEARE, N.H. - Following a Supreme Court ruling last week that gave local governments more power to seize private property, someone has made what appears to be a tongue-in-cheek pitch to take over Justice David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turn it into a hotel.

"The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare," Logan Darrow Clements of California wrote in a letter faxed to town officials in Weare on Tuesday.

Souter, a longtime Weare resident, joined in the 5-4 court decision allowing governments to seize private property from one owner and turn it over to another if doing so would benefit a community.



The letter dubbing the project the "Lost Liberty Hotel" was posted on conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh's Web site. Clements said it would include a dining room called the "Just Desserts Cafe" an a museum focused on the "loss of freedom in America."

A message seeking comment from Souter was left at his office Wednesday morning. The court has recessed and Souter was still in Washington, one of his secretaries said.

A few police cruisers were parked on the edge of Souter's property Tuesday.

"It was a precaution, just being protective," said Lt. Mark Bodanza.

[SLCPUNK]

I hope it the hotel goes up.

[Guns N RockMusic]

SLC Punk you really need to pull your head out of your ass.  I can tell that you're not very well educated in political philosophy at all.  I'd further speculate that you've never taken a college level American or Constitutional law class as well.  The supreme Court is essentially Consisted of 3 Conservatives and 4 Liberals with two moderates.  The degree of liberal and conservative bias varies by each member and because of the moderates is not controlled by either liberals or conservatives.  Thankfully, our justices interpret the constitution that way it was written and leave their personal opinions out most of the time, but on the important decsions you can see them vote right down their party lines.  While legal experts view the court as I mentioned earlier, many argue (as do I) that the court is split 4-4 with one true moderate.  However I digress, this ruling stems from a modern liberal outlook in which a collective outlook is the goal.  Democrats or Republicans aren't black and white, and your obvious small understanding of legal and political philosophy screams ignorance.  Before you dub me a republican or conservative, let me inform you that I am a libertarian - the only true party that can claim personal freedom as their objective.  If you advocate welfare, socialized medicine, gun control or anti-abortion and prayer in schools you are not for Freedom, but the enforcement of your vision of how society should be.  I don't know if you hold any of these ideals, but I'd bet my bottom dollar you're a staunch liberal and that's anything but freedom oriented.  How can you condemn the government for taking property in one breath, and presumably advocate the collection of tax dollars for social programs in the other?  Your only possible answer is that you think people should have a high standard of living and medicine at the expsense and cost of others.  Without debating that issue, that is theft of their property.  I'm glad to see issues like this coming up, because people should think about them.  However, it seems that many want to bash the Republican party and champion the Democrats.  While I dislike both parties, the modern Democratic party is the enemy of the working man and middle class and if you can't see this or understand why I'd argue that, you have no business criticizing others and spouting your inane political rhetoric.

[SLCPUNK]

The supreme Court is essentially Consisted of 3 Conservatives and 4 Liberals with two moderates.

Nighttrain is that you?

First of all the question was "How many republicans", which I answered, correctly. Period.

All personal insults or ASSumptions will be ignored.


I don't know if you hold any of these ideals, but I'd bet my bottom dollar you're a staunch liberal and that's anything but freedom oriented.

That's right, you don't know what I think...

  How can you condemn the government for taking property in one breath, and presumably advocate the collection of tax dollars for social programs in the other?

I don't remember advocating (you assume again) any social programs lately. However the government taking property away  in order to make more money and social programs are two different subjects.

  Your only possible answer is that you think people should have a high standard of living and medicine at the expsense and cost of others.

This seems to be you answering  for me.   

  While I dislike both parties, the modern Democratic party is the enemy of the working man and middle class and if you can't see this or understand why I'd argue that, you have no business criticizing others and spouting your inane political rhetoric.

Wow, you sound like Bill O'reilly. He claims he has no bias either, but rambles endlessly about the evil liberals too.

You give no examples of how the Dems are the enemy of the "working man". Although I do see Republicans who raise taxes for the middle class, while giving the upper crust tax breaks.

Good book for you: What happened to Kansas?

Anyway, as usual, another Republican disguised as a "Libertarian" coming here to bash away. So let me get this straight: You ask a question, then answer for me, then tell me how I have no business to criticize others, and that the Dems are the enemy of the working man. All while giving no examples, links, articles, anything to back your point. And you are calling me "inane?"
 
Hmmm....go fuck yourself.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Rather than ignore my assumptions, why don't you refute them?  Are you sir a liberal ( I already know the answer, but please answer that question anyway?

I don't remember advocating (you assume again) any social programs lately. However the government taking property away  in order to make more money and social programs are two different subjects.

The fact that you don't understand the correlation demonstates my point of how ignorant you truly are on the issue.  Nothing is free in this world and social programs are paid through tax payes via the government.  Any tax revenue gained from the new buildings thtough this upsetting ruling will be used to fund the government and its programs.  If you can't make that simple connection, you should have a disclaimer before all post warning people that "A fuckign idiot is about to speak" as a courtesy to all those who don't wish to lower their IQ or get a headache.

You give no examples of how the Dems are the enemy of the "working man". Although I do see Republicans who raise taxes for the middle class, while giving the upper crust tax breaks.

Again, you truly show your lack of knowledge.  Liberals demand bigger government with bigger control and more spending.  The government spends OUR dollars when they do this.  The Democrats are the ones who champion more spending and since the Evil corporations either find a loop hole around taxes or just pass it on to the consumer, it is the working class who gets fucked in this matter.  I'll say it again since you obvioulsy don't understand, nothing is free in this world and the cost for new peograms and corporate taxes is the burden of the working class.  The Republican party (at least traditionally) and the Libertarian party advocate free markets and little to no social programs which takes the burden away from the tax payer.

I'm no Republican disguised as a Libertarian.  I've placed my basic views here for all to see (something you have yet to do) and I most certainly am a staunch libertarian.  Rather than read conspiracy theory.com and talk politics with other undeducated uninformed liberals, try reading some books yourself.  I have a degree in Political Theory and am working on my Master's, so at least I have some credibility in my arguments.  I actually read all sides of the argument before I formulate an opinion, but I am the true political minority because I truly stand for individual autonomy and diversity; I don't goto Marx or the Bible to get my opinion.  Rather than telling me to fuck off, answer my questions.  Anyone with an IQ over 90 will realize you're full of shit and just repeating the same old tired rhetoric again and again.  I highly suggest you read the books "Free to Choose" and "Cost of Rights".  At least then you'll have some perspective.  To finish this post, I'll be more than happy to answer and debate any political stance you can ponder.  Pull your head out of your ass and analyze the issue before you let the shit pour out. 

[SLCPUNK]

Rather than ignore my assumptions, why don't you refute them?  Are you sir a liberal ( I already know the answer, but please answer that question anyway?

Because they are off topic. They are used to distract from the point of what was being discussed.

  Nothing is free in this world and social programs are paid through tax payes via the government.  Any tax revenue gained from the new buildings thtough this upsetting ruling will be used to fund the government and its programs. 

You are creating a strawman to tear down here.....

The issue (being discussed) is not what happens with the tax money, but rather the fact that homes can be taken away from a citizen to create more tax revenue. You are stretching this very thin to try and discredit me. It is thin, and your childish personal insults only show that you have little to fight with. It's what happens when somebody does not have a leg to stand on.

Not to mention, if you find the ruling "upsetting" and so do I...then what is the problem? I said there are 7 REGISTERED republicans on the Supreme Court and you have a problem with that? Sorry, but that is...what it is.



  Liberals demand bigger government with bigger control and more spending.

I don't think you understand. I said to give me something other than you "expert opinion" to back your claims.

  The Republican party (at least traditionally) and the Libertarian party advocate free markets and little to no social programs which takes the burden away from the tax payer.

BOTH parties roll over for the large corporations and the people get stuck with the bill. The burden on the tax payer is because huge corporations DON'T pay taxes and often times get returns.

 BILLIONS are being spent on a war in Iraq...According to Bush that is a social program, is it not? He CLAIMS to be rebuilding Iraq with it. Building infrastructure, providing medical care...shit! Those aren't even Americans.... And you can sit there and tell me the Democrats are wasting all the tax money on social programs....You are truly "inane"!!! 

Not to mention all the overbilling Haliburton has been found guilty of...to the tune of BILLIONS. Guess who picked that one up? The taxpayers! And who contracted them out? Hmmmm....The republican pukes in office! NOT the Democrats.

Did you go to a public school growing up?


LOL, and you think social programs are the only thing tax money goes to? Ever driven down a road? 

I have a degree in Political Theory and am working on my Master's, so at least I have some credibility in my arguments.

An appeal by Authority.....

Ahhh...I see the logical fallacy strikes again! 

Using your same logic I can say that "Yea, but look at your tatoo, there is no way somebody with a tatoo like that can know anything about politics..."

Get it?

  Rather than telling me to fuck off, answer my questions.

Your questions have no relevance and are way off topic. You are using logical fallacies (Attacking the person, False Dilemma, Complex question, Prejudicial Language, Hasty Generalization,  and Appeal to Authority are all being used here) one after the other. An intelligent person can see you are flawwed and would tell you to fuck yourself, sorry.

 To finish this post, I'll be more than happy to answer and debate any political stance you can ponder.  Pull your head out of your ass and analyze the issue before you let the shit pour out. 

Start a thread then, and stay on topic when you do.

[Guns N RockMusic]

I will say that I am impressed in your knowledge of logic.? I too have studied logic and you present a valid point in your claims.? True, we both agree that this court ruling is a stain on the Constitution and American legal system.? However, I was responding to your claims that this ruling stemmed from a conservative outlook or view on jurisprudence, which is simply not the case.? Truth be told, I was against the war in Iraq and believe it to be a waste of my tax dollars, but as a member of the armed forces, I believe that since we're there the war must be fought properly and thus merits the budget it receives.? I do state again that you are correct in the logical fallacies in which you presented, but I was never trying to discredit your argument by discredting you.? There are people with PhDs who command much more authority than my meaningless BA ( see Chomsky) who argue many of the same points as you.? My argument was to defend against your accusation that Conservatives or Republicans are to blame for this ruling when in my opinion is stems entirely from the liberal, collectivist or socialist outlook that stands to destroy our freedoms.? However, I will also concede that many of the Bush administartion's policy proposals and ideas pose an equal threat to individual liberty.? The discussion we've had is something I always enjoy having as I appreciate anyone's comments who correct or show error in my own.? For that I am greatful.

[SLCPUNK]

I will say that I am impressed in your knowledge of logic.  I too have studied logic and you present a valid point in your claims.  True, we both agree that this court ruling is a stain on the Constitution and American legal system.  However, I was responding to your claims that this ruling stemmed from a conservative outlook or view on jurisprudence, which is simply not the case.  Truth be told, I was against the war in Iraq and believe it to be a waste of my tax dollars, but as a member of the armed forces, I believe that since we're there the war must be fought properly and thus merits the budget it receives.  I do state again that you are correct in the logical fallacies in which you presented, but I was never trying to discredit your argument by discredting you.  There are people with PhDs who command much more authority than my meaningless BA ( see Chomsky) who argue many of the same points as you.  My argument was to defend against your accusation that Conservatives or Republicans are to blame for this ruling when in my opinion is stems entirely from the liberal, collectivist or socialist outlook that stands to destroy our freedoms.  However, I will also concede that many of the Bush administartion's policy proposals and ideas pose an equal threat to individual liberty.  The discussion we've had is something I always enjoy having as I appreciate anyone's comments who correct or show error in my own.  For that I am greatful.

Fair enough, agreed.

Thanks.

EDIT: Is it ok to take my head out of my ass now? 

[pilferk]

As an off topic aside:

Eminent domain is largely used by municipalities, not the federal government, or even state governments.  Thats not to say that it isn't used by those agencies, just used less frequently.

In the case in question, it is a town.  The town government will be the ones garnering the increased tax revenue.  As I'm sure you know, having some knowledge of government, town budgets don't fund, as a general rule, much in the way of "social programs".  They fund infrastructure, road maintenance, school systems (usually 50%+ of any town budget), etc.  As SLC correctly pointed out, the whole arguement is a strawman, anyway.  However, the assumption that the use of eminent domain simply to increase tax revenue has any bearing on the funding of "social programs" is a tenous assumption at best and, at worst, a logical fallacy.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

i love when people talk about the government as foreign, alien entity.
like there is " US (the people) " and there is "the govermenent" spending OUR dollar.
a government is YOU.
a government is spending dollars FOR you. they're not buying ferraris with your tax money.


i got a question: who nominates the "democract" persons on the supreme court , does g w bush chooses freely or does he go by what the democracts tells him to do ?

[Rain]

i love when people talk about the government as foreign, alien entity.
like there is " US (the people) " and there is "the govermenent" spending OUR dollar.
a government is YOU.
a government is spending dollars FOR you. they're not buying ferraris with your tax money.

Wow ! We agree ! I kept wondering why taxes were so bad if with them we get free education and health care.

[pilferk]

i love when people talk about the government as foreign, alien entity.
like there is " US (the people) " and there is "the govermenent" spending OUR dollar.
a government is YOU.
a government is spending dollars FOR you. they're not buying ferraris with your tax money.


i got a question: who nominates the "democract" persons on the supreme court , does g w bush chooses freely or does he go by what the democracts tells him to do ?

Um...a past president nominated/appointed them.  GW certainly didn't.  Supreme's are appointed for "life" (ie, they stay until they retire or die), regardless of administration changes.  That means, a president only gets to appoint a new member of the court IF someone currently on the court elects to retire or passes away.  This will be GW's first SC nomination/appointment....and he's appointing a republican (again, his right...not saying it isn't).

[Guns N RockMusic]

I kept wondering why taxes were so bad if with them we get free education and heath care.

This is the exact problem I was referencing in comparison to eminent domain.  You want free education and free health, so you have no problem contributing a large percentage of your income to these programs.  I however don't want these programs and prefer the free market system where corporations (most corporations are mom and pop shops, not Enron) can offer medical insurance as an incentive to attract quality employees.  Taking my tax money for exspenses you desire is no different than some judge taking my home to bring in increased revenue for the community.  Both instances show just how powerful we've let the government become.  The Government is its own entity.  While you and I have a vote, the government machine has its own interest to sustain its own longevity and increase its power.  Everytime a new program is instituted or more power granted, our society becomes less and less free. 

For the record, I'm not against all taxes, we need roads, defense and other cost to maintain the lifestyle we Americans enjoy.  However, the more authority and control we turn over to the government out of convenience is power we won't get back.  To delude ourselves into thinking we can reclaim that power when we want is naieve at best.  When social security was first instituted in the 1930s, it was advertised as a temporary and optional program.  Now it's required by law to join.  I'm not saying that arguments for these programs don't have merit, but they are not in accordance with a capitalist and free society.  I know I've kind of gone off topic, but I think this is pertinent to this conversation.  Many of you believe that America is on its way to a police state or maybe is already there, yet you desire to hand over more control to that same institution.  Explain to me the logical thought process in that.  The only way to make sure the government doesn't overstep its limits is the 2nd Amendment and unfortunately many of you want to re-write that one as well. 

The name of this topic (New America) is 100% correct and its only going to get worse if many of us don't follow the outcomes from some of the ideas we have.

[Rain]

This is the exact problem I was referencing in comparison to eminent domain.? You want free education and free health, so you have no problem contributing a large percentage of your income to these programs.? I however don't want these programs and prefer the free market system where corporations (most corporations are mom and pop shops, not Enron) can offer medical insurance as an incentive to attract quality employees.?

I'm glad to disagree w/ you on that matter. I hope we never get to see your dreamed society here. I live in a country in which for the time being the system still works. I didn't pay for my scholarship. I graduated from university (A master Degree) and I only paid 400 dollars a year for one of the best university in the field I wanted to study. When I'm sick I go see a doctor - I pay 20 euros (more or less 20 bucks) and the social security gives 14 euros back to me. Now that I work it's only fair I pay taxes to get the system working. I still have enough to live well.

Taking my tax money for exspenses you desire is no different than some judge taking my home to bring in increased revenue for the community.? Both instances show just how powerful we've let the government become.? The Government is its own entity.? While you and I have a vote, the government machine has its own interest to sustain its own longevity and increase its power.? Everytime a new program is instituted or more power granted, our society becomes less and less free.

And when I read you're not against all taxes, that you need roads and an army well I see our priorities are not the same ... I prefer taking care of people to roads and education to defense.

And it don't feel like not being free because I pay taxes ...?

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

exactly rain ! you go girl !

and Guns N RockMusic, you think the governement is an evil entity and just want more power and money ?? .... i'd love to see how your dream world ruled by corporations will take care of you ...... if you are not a quality employee.


question more: if a suprem court guy dies and he was a democrat, the current president must choose a new guy who is a democrat too ? how do they define democrat ? republican ? by the political parties ? the president just takes any new democrat he *likes* ?

[pilferk]

exactly rain ! you go girl !

and Guns N RockMusic, you think the governement is an evil entity and just want more power and money ?? .... i'd love to see how your dream world ruled by corporations will take care of you ...... if you are not a quality employee.


question more: if a suprem court guy dies and he was a democrat, the current president must choose a new guy who is a democrat too ? how do they define democrat ? republican ? by the political parties ? the president just takes any new democrat he *likes* ?

No, if a supreme court justice dies, the president can  appoint anyone, of any political party.  The court is not, necessarily, made up of any given number of any particular party.   There is no mandate that says there must be 4 republicans, 4 democrats and one independant.   Thus, a democrat does not need to be replaced with a democrat.  They can be replaced by a republican, democrat, or independant as the current president sees fit.  That's why so many democtrats are unhappy that O'Conner decided to retire.  They know that she was an important swing vote, as a moderate, that a Republican president now gets to replace with a hand picked candidate (and thus, someone who is more likely to vote along his lines of thinking).  With the Chief Justice also in ailing health, and an aging court overall, there is a decent chance that this president will get to choose another justice during his term...at least one more....as well.  If that were to happen, the Republicans would have long term influence (for arguements sake) on the court since they would be left with a good sized majority and a large majority of the younger justices on the bench.  That thought gives the democrats heart palpatations.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

exactly rain ! you go girl !

and Guns N RockMusic, you think the governement is an evil entity and just want more power and money ?? .... i'd love to see how your dream world ruled by corporations will take care of you ...... if you are not a quality employee.


question more: if a suprem court guy dies and he was a democrat, the current president must choose a new guy who is a democrat too ? how do they define democrat ? republican ? by the political parties ? the president just takes any new democrat he *likes* ?

No, if a supreme court justice dies, the president can  appoint anyone, of any political party.  The court is not, necessarily, made up of any given number of any particular party.   There is no mandate that says there must be 4 republicans, 4 democrats and one independant.   Thus, a democrat does not need to be replaced with a democrat.  They can be replaced by a republican, democrat, or independant as the current president sees fit.  That's why so many democtrats are unhappy that O'Conner decided to retire.  They know that she was an important swing vote, as a moderate, that a Republican president now gets to replace with a hand picked candidate (and thus, someone who is more likely to vote along his lines of thinking).  With the Chief Justice also in ailing health, and an aging court overall, there is a decent chance that this president will get to choose another justice during his term...at least one more....as well.  If that were to happen, the Republicans would have long term influence (for arguements sake) on the court since they would be left with a good sized majority and a large majority of the younger justices on the bench.  That thought gives the democrats heart palpatations.

man. so thats why GWB picked a young, handsome man as jon stewart said

[pilferk]

I kept wondering why taxes were so bad if with them we get free education and heath care.

This is the exact problem I was referencing in comparison to eminent domain.? You want free education and free health, so you have no problem contributing a large percentage of your income to these programs.? I however don't want these programs and prefer the free market system where corporations (most corporations are mom and pop shops, not Enron) can offer medical insurance as an incentive to attract quality employees.? Taking my tax money for exspenses you desire is no different than some judge taking my home to bring in increased revenue for the community.? Both instances show just how powerful we've let the government become.? The Government is its own entity.? While you and I have a vote, the government machine has its own interest to sustain its own longevity and increase its power.? Everytime a new program is instituted or more power granted, our society becomes less and less free.?

For the record, I'm not against all taxes, we need roads, defense and other cost to maintain the lifestyle we Americans enjoy.? However, the more authority and control we turn over to the government out of convenience is power we won't get back.? To delude ourselves into thinking we can reclaim that power when we want is naieve at best.? When social security was first instituted in the 1930s, it was advertised as a temporary and optional program.? Now it's required by law to join.? I'm not saying that arguments for these programs don't have merit, but they are not in accordance with a capitalist and free society.? I know I've kind of gone off topic, but I think this is pertinent to this conversation.? Many of you believe that America is on its way to a police state or maybe is already there, yet you desire to hand over more control to that same institution.? Explain to me the logical thought process in that.? The only way to make sure the government doesn't overstep its limits is the 2nd Amendment and unfortunately many of you want to re-write that one as well.?

The name of this topic (New America) is 100% correct and its only going to get worse if many of us don't follow the outcomes from some of the ideas we have.

Just a couple of points, some on topic, some off, but all relevant to the post above:

1) I see a fundamental difference in paying taxes that MIGHT fund programs I don't use, or don't want funded, as vastly different than pulling a person's property out from under them. ?I see the similarity you're proposing, but the vast difference in scale makes the two utterly incomparable. ?

2) While you're correct in saying that most corporations are small businesses, the picture that information paints in incomlete. ?The top 10% of all corporations, combined, in the US make more revenue than the bottom 90%, combined...yet the bottom 90%, combined, pay more taxes, by an astronomical amount, than do the top 10%, combined. ?It's all well and good to want a free market society, and to believe we should allow businesses to use tools they can afford to attract quality workers. ?The problem is, those corporations have much too much influence in not just the way business is done, but in the way life is lived. To take your example: ?If health care were only provided by corporations that could afford to pay for it, up front, to attract quality workers, it would ensure "the best and brightest" only go to those corporations with BIG pocketbooks, stifling competition and the growth of small business (we've seen some of this with the "Wal Mart-ization" of Main Street). ?Not, I think, the ideal solution. ?While I agree, "free" health care isn't the answer either (the "controlled" costs of health care causes issues in quality and quantity in those scenarios), I think there is a happy medium to be found....though I also think the current system is not it.

3) ?Big Government is a problem. ?So is Big Business. ?The two are so completely intertwined that nothing short of political hari kari is going to seperate the two. ?That's a problem. ?But I don't think forming a local militia to overthrow our bloated system is the answer, either. ?The answer, actually, is very simple: ?Get educated and get involved. ?Even if it's at your local level. ?It sounds like a cliche, I know. ?But it really is the answer. ?The problem is: ?Too many Americans just go in and pull a party lever (if they vote at all) and pay zero attention to what their elected officials actually DO. ?They listen to the media and party rhetoric, villify the opposing party, and bury their heads in the sand on a day to day basis. ?While I disagree with lots of what GunsnRock says, I do respect that he's at least educated himself on the politics of the day....and that, too, is part of the problem. ?People seem to be unable, for the most part, to respectfully disagree with a viewpoint, and turn that disagreement into productive use (ie: compromise). ?The political system has become one of black and white, if you listen to the rhetoric from the party lines...and what ends up happening is a LOT of fingerpointing, and no problem solving.

OK...rant over.

[SLCPUNK]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4784368

 In one of many development plans that got a boost from the recent Supreme Court decision on eminent domain, Long Branch, N.J., plans to condemn dozens of modest bungalows along the shore so a developer can put up condos. The mayor think this would be great for tax revenue. Longtime residents -- and some lawmakers -- wonder about the limits of "public interest."