Tales from the Wonderland

[SOREHOOF]

The Supreme Court doesn't always get it right, although in this case I think they did. Seizing private property to get more tax dollars is scary. I don't believe she would come down on the right side of that one.

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

The Supreme Court doesn't always get it right, although in this case I think they did. Seizing private property to get more tax dollars is scary. I don't believe she would come down on the right side of that one.

So its that simple in what kind of cases?
The government takes your property in order
to get tax money...

What case was that?

[dellinger63]

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.

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.

[timmgirvan]

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!

[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?

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.

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.