Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-01-2009, 02:58 PM
dellinger63's Avatar
dellinger63 dellinger63 is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 10,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgardn
So its that simple in what kind of cases?
The government takes your property in order
to get tax money...

What case was that?
Thursday, June 23, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A closely divided Supreme Court ruled June 23 that municipal and other governments have broad power to seize private property for public purposes.

In a 5-4 ruling, the high court upheld the right of New London, Conn., to seize and raze several private homes and replace them with a waterfront office, retail and housing project. The court's majority held that the depressed industrial town's leaders could claim and redevelop the property for the "public use" of creating new jobs and increasing tax revenue.

Somehow I think she'd be in the majority on this one.
__________________
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-01-2009, 04:28 PM
pgardn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dellinger63
Thursday, June 23, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A closely divided Supreme Court ruled June 23 that municipal and other governments have broad power to seize private property for public purposes.

In a 5-4 ruling, the high court upheld the right of New London, Conn., to seize and raze several private homes and replace them with a waterfront office, retail and housing project. The court's majority held that the depressed industrial town's leaders could claim and redevelop the property for the "public use" of creating new jobs and increasing tax revenue.

Somehow I think she'd be in the majority on this one.
So it was imminent domain.
It is not about taxes. Its about getting
people jobs. People who have jobs can
pay taxes so a city can function.

BTW I personally was NOT happy with the decision.
But it was again simplified by the original poster.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-01-2009, 11:07 PM
timmgirvan's Avatar
timmgirvan timmgirvan is offline
Havre de Grace
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Powder Springs Ga
Posts: 5,780
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgardn
So it was imminent domain.
It is not about taxes. Its about getting
people jobs. People who have jobs can
pay taxes so a city can function.

BTW I personally was NOT happy with the decision.
But it was again simplified by the original poster.
Depends on whether the people were fairly compensated.....Eminent Domain
is probably the weakest arguement for creation of jobs,imo!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-01-2009, 11:44 PM
hi_im_god's Avatar
hi_im_god hi_im_god is offline
Arlington Park
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,043
Default

david souter was one of the 5.

and you have a democratic president and senate.

why are we talking about this case? did you expect an appointment more conservative than souter?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-01-2009, 11:50 PM
pgardn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hi_im_god
david souter was one of the 5.

and you have a democratic president and senate.

why are we talking about this case? did you expect an appointment more conservative than souter?
Frankly I think the Obama group is hoping the conservatives
throw a fit and make it difficult. She will get confirmed anyway.
They will most likely have to replace another more liberal leaning
judge (the group of 4 is old)and I think a losing fight now, makes the next appt. easier to get through.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-02-2009, 12:19 AM
hi_im_god's Avatar
hi_im_god hi_im_god is offline
Arlington Park
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,043
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgardn
Frankly I think the Obama group is hoping the conservatives
throw a fit and make it difficult. She will get confirmed anyway.
They will most likely have to replace another more liberal leaning
judge (the group of 4 is old)and I think a losing fight now, makes the next appt. easier to get through.
you're right. they don't care about fits.

they knew this was a slam dunk. they still know it's a slam dunk. it was the easy non-controversial choice.

pissing on the nominee is part of the fund raising process for "judicial watch" groups. it justifies their existence even when it quixotic. there will always be a "controversy" manufactured. both sides do this.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-02-2009, 12:22 AM
GBBob GBBob is offline
Hialeah Park
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,342
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hi_im_god
you're right. they don't care about fits.

they knew this was a slam dunk. they still know it's a slam dunk. it was the easy non-controversial choice.

pissing on the nominee is part of the fund raising process for "judicial watch" groups. it justifies their existence even when it quixotic. there will always be a "controversy" manufactured. both sides do this.

I'm still trying to figure out how John Roberts sailed through confirmation and then was suddenly Grand Poohbah

I mean...wasn't Rose Marie available?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-01-2009, 11:46 PM
pgardn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timmgirvan
Depends on whether the people were fairly compensated.....Eminent Domain
is probably the weakest arguement for creation of jobs,imo!
That is why I did not like the decision.
Using it to buy land to be able to transport
water, power, etc... seems much more reasonable.

It was also a city using this for a private entity
to make money imo.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.