Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

[quote name='camoor']Anyone else think it's humorous that after all his mom-and-apple-pie grandstanding, CTL is quoting French Queens?[/QUOTE]

Imbecile, she was prior to 1815.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Imbecile, she was prior to 1815.[/QUOTE]

Not sure what you mean by that.

The American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) was our forefathers fight for their unalienable rights, against the aristocratic power of an English monarchy.

Mary Antoinette was one of the titular figureheads of the French monarchy, and was executed in 1793. Are you now saying that you are a fan of the France prior to the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1815)? What irks you about the French revolution - the fact that democrats and republicans (in the classic sense) overthrew the monarchy and absolute power of the Catholic church? What do you love about Napoleon, his fanatical nationalism or his zeal to slaughter thousands in a failed effort to build a new empire?
 
[quote name='camoor']Not sure what you mean by that.

The American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) was our forefathers fight for their unalienable rights, against the aristocratic power of an English monarchy.

Mary Antoinette was one of the titular figureheads of the French monarchy, and was executed in 1793. Are you now saying that you are a fan of the France prior to the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1815)? What irks you about the French revolution - the fact that democrats and republicans (in the classic sense) overthrew the monarchy and absolute power of the Catholic church? What do you love about Napoleon, his fanatical nationalism or his zeal to slaughter thousands in a failed effort to build a new empire?[/QUOTE]

Since you are so familiar with my "mom-and-apple-pie grandstanding" I am suprised that you suddenly have become so confused.

I have expressed no opinion on France prior to 1815. After 1815 I have relentlessly beat AZ23 over the head about France's 190 years of military defeats.

So that I comment about a French leader prior to 1815 to mock you is entirely consistent with every position I have held on the French.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Damn, that was a remarkebly weak head beating.[/quote]

Right. You and everyone else were laughing at Chirac.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Though it's strange, the "true american" likes the french monarchy. How, shall we say, unamerican of you.[/QUOTE]

A used a quote. I didn't swear allegiance.
 
[quote name='Ruined']The judges who were for this were primarily liberals. Not cool.[/QUOTE]

I know - it's puzzling because it's usually conservatives who are interested in burying the poor under the heels of the super rich. I think it's time for a third party - the people's party!
 
[quote name='camoor']I know - it's puzzling because it's usually conservatives who are interested in burying the poor under the heels of the super rich. I think it's time for a third party - the people's party![/QUOTE]

Yes lead the "people's party" to the barricades. Our tanks will crush you.
 
[quote name='Ruined']The judges who were for this were primarily liberals. Not cool.[/QUOTE]

Almost all were appointed by a republican president yet its always those damn liberals fault.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'm acutally surprised someone beat me to this.

Welcome to judicial activist America where you have no private property rights of any kind any more. Government likes your property? They take it. Government thinks they can generate more tax revenue from commercializing your property than you living there? They take it.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the backbone of Soviet life; the ability of government to sieze private property at will.[/QUOTE]

You are so fucking dumb.

"I don't agree!!! I'll call them activist."

Those "activists" jugdes got your dumbfuck president elected.
 
[quote name='camoor']It doesn't surprise me that you're the only one in this thread that thinks the decision was a good idea, and a funny joke at the poor's expense to boot.

I can tell by your posts that you are the worst type of lawyer, and you have no idea why the American revolutionaries fought for a country that would be free from the control of an unsympathetic aristocracy.[/QUOTE]

Has anyone confirmed that this kid's a lawyer anyway? He has posts "from Iraq" from less than 7 months ago. Something doesn't flow properly here.

I don't care if he's a lawyer or not, it doesn't affect my opinion of him. There is a reason that I've ceased denigrating myself to responding to him. I do, however, think that something seems strange about him claiming to be a lawyer.

myke.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']Almost all were appointed by a republican president yet its always those damn liberals fault.[/QUOTE]

Well, as much as I have no respect for Ruined, who seems to post more opinion as fact than fact as fact, he's spot on here. 'Twas the left side of the Supreme Court that did this.

It will be overturned the second a rich person's home is in danger. Shame that it will stand until that happens, as I saw a trailer park near the neighborhood I grew up in become decimated to put in a new Home Depot, which now makes 4 or more I can drive to in 15 minutes or less. That's fucking nauseating. And my university's unofficial motto regarding gentrifying the neighborhood is "their loss is our gain."

myke.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, as much as I have no respect for Ruined, who seems to post more opinion as fact than fact as fact, he's spot on here. 'Twas the left side of the Supreme Court that did this.

It will be overturned the second a rich person's home is in danger. Shame that it will stand until that happens, as I saw a trailer park near the neighborhood I grew up in become decimated to put in a new Home Depot, which now makes 4 or more I can drive to in 15 minutes or less. That's fucking nauseating. And my university's unofficial motto regarding gentrifying the neighborhood is "their loss is our gain."

myke.[/QUOTE]

yea but the left side of what, being right? All these people had to appease the Republican presidents enough to make the choice to put them on the court. When only two people are appointed by a democrat, it's their own damn parties fault for appointing these people and not the fault of the left or the democrats.

Place blame on your own party and not on the other because even if the two democrats voted for this, it means 3 republicans did as well
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']yea but the left side of what, being right? All these people had to appease the Republican presidents enough to make the choice to put them on the court. When only two people are appointed by a democrat, it's their own damn parties fault for appointing these people and not the fault of the left or the democrats.

Place blame on your own party and not on the other because even if the two democrats voted for this, it means 3 republicans did as well[/QUOTE]

It's still fascinating that the "conservative" judges voted against it, of course.

My party is anything but the Republican party; I'm proud to wear the lapel of "liberal" (even if I don't own said lapel). I'm simply ashamed that those on the Supreme Court who consider themselves Democrats would capitulate themselves to big business the way you would expect a Republican to.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's still fascinating that the "conservative" judges voted against it, of course.

My party is anything but the Republican party; I'm proud to wear the lapel of "liberal" (even if I don't own said lapel). I'm simply ashamed that those on the Supreme Court who consider themselves Democrats would capitulate themselves to big business the way you would expect a Republican to.[/QUOTE]

I will agree with you there. I do not agree with the ruling, but it just kind of irks me when people bash the supreme court for being left when the damn thing was pretty much all appointed by the right
 
Besides the verdict itself, I don't see how it's surprising that the judges made those decisions. Just because they're labeled 'conservative' or 'liberal' doesn't mean EVERY single thing they do is that. They're not defined by such labels. They're human beings - i.e. have the individual capacity to be both conservative and liberal on a variety of topics.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Besides the verdict itself, I don't see how it's surprising that the judges made those decisions. Just because they're labeled 'conservative' or 'liberal' doesn't mean EVERY single thing they do is that. They're not defined by such labels. They're human beings - i.e. have the individual capacity to be both conservative and liberal on a variety of topics.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Theoretically and ideally, they are supposed to make unbiased decisions based on interpretation of law rather than personal ideology. Now, we all know that there's not a chance in hell that happens 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean that every decision they make can be squarely labeled as "liberal" or "conservative." If they could, there would be no point in having the judicial branch of our government.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Besides the verdict itself, I don't see how it's surprising that the judges made those decisions. Just because they're labeled 'conservative' or 'liberal' doesn't mean EVERY single thing they do is that. They're not defined by such labels. They're human beings - i.e. have the individual capacity to be both conservative and liberal on a variety of topics.[/QUOTE]

Come on - the liberals making a decision like this is like George W suddenly realizing that homosexuals are also human beings with certain unalienable rights - it's a big surprise and I would never have guessed this outcome.
 
[quote name='camoor']Come on - the liberals making a decision like this is like George W suddenly realizing that homosexuals are also human beings with certain unalienable rights - it's a big surprise and I would never have guessed this outcome.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, the verdict surprised me but not the people who made it. I'm of the mindset that everyone cannot and will not be of one way of doing things all the time. I'm just surprised that the judges (as a collective) decided that this is a legit way of obtaining real estate. I find this especially troubling to me since that is my field of expertise - real estate. I'm on the corporate end and I could definitely see the potential for abuse but I wouldn't personally use this method to obtain properties. It may be legal but hardly ethical. If anything, I find it humorous that the dissenting judges were of the conservative label.
 
[quote name='camoor']Come on - the liberals making a decision like this is like George W suddenly realizing that homosexuals are also human beings with certain unalienable rights - it's a big surprise and I would never have guessed this outcome.[/QUOTE]

I dont see how you are suprised a liberal decieded the way they did. Liberals are all about taxing your income as much as possible, so why not take your home too?

Republicans and Democrats have their downsides. Siding completely with one side is the wrong way to see things imo. Im conservative on some issues, and very liberal on others personally. Im all for gay marriage and the right of a woman to chose, but totally against democrats taxing policies. I dont see this as any different.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']I dont see how you are suprised a liberal decieded the way they did. Liberals are all about taxing your income as much as possible, so why not take your home too?[/QUOTE]

People labelled as "liberals" in America usually consider the property rights of poor/middle-class people to trump the ability of the state/super-rich/corporate conglomerate to acquire your home and property for economic gain.

I would argue that this decision was not American Liberalism, instead it marched right over the line into Socialist Corporatism.
 
[quote name='camoor']I would argue that this decision was not American Liberalism, instead it marched right over the line into Socialist Corporatism.[/QUOTE]

That quote hits the nail on the head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top