"and so i said to the mayor.... no really.. take my wife please... and my property"

It's such a stupid ruling. It's just so typical of our government. They continue to rule in favor of big buisness and the rich.

Basically you could say that now the corperations have exported so many middle class jobs.... they can now just take your property and build a golf course and basically out class your ass right out of the country.

"Go live with the poor!.. America is for the rich" says the government.

...And the first curfew will be just for homosexuals...

a curfew is the last thing Homosexuals should be worrying about. What's to stop them from outlawing it all together? Oh yeah.. Dick Cheney's daughter... hmmmmmmm

SCARY WORLD.

Dissenting judges were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Normally I'm on the liberal side of things, but in this case, the voice of reason seems to be coming from the conservatives. This case just blows my mind!

I could see this ruling used as an excuse to discriminate against people & used in attempts to eliminate competition.

this is really, really sad.


Hey, I bet I can make NYC more profitable: let me demolish the entire city and prove it!

I just noticed that this case is the subject of tonight's CNN online poll. Out of about 180,000 votes, only 2400 agree with the Supreme Court's decision to allow seizure for private economic development. This ruling is absolutely outrageous.

John

I don't know about about all of NYC, but the guy who is trying to bring the NJ Nets to Brooklyn is trying this. Same thing that the Texas Rangers did when they build their ballpark.

The NY Times recent had something similiar when they moved buildings. A bigger deal was all the tax breaks they got. A lot of people felt they worked a deal to get tax breaks in return for endorsing Pataki for governor.

As wrong as the recent SCOTUS decision allowing to prosecute State authorized medical cannabis patients and allow them NO defense in Federal court. This country has no room in its jails for child molestors like the guy in San Jose who had been arrested 9x for sex charges and still commited thousands of additional crimes, but they have room to house sick and suffering people in States that have approved Medical Marijuana. Our nations children are dying to bring the right to vote to Iraq. We don't even honor true election results here at home. If Bush recieved anywhere near the support that medical marijuana has [80% according to several polls] he could honstly claim a mandate. Heck he could then honestly claim a victory in the 1st round! He lies about reasons to go to war so he and his Old Boys Network can live high on the hog. They waste our DEA resources on sick people because its easy and threatens the big Pharmaceutical Indu$try. Forgtet the real war on terror, forget your future, we have real problems in Washington D.C.!!!

This is exactly the kind of thing Janice Rogers Brown would have ruled against too, and she was one of the so called "extremist" Bush nominees. She was just finally confirmed to the Federal bench after being smeared (quite disgustingly) in the media (NPR, Moyer's NOW) and by single interest groups (National Organization for Women, black oriented magazines, People for the American Way) for almost TWO YEARS. I hope she ends up on the Supreme Court someday.

considering this post - I will quote a great line from the movie (animated series) Anistasia - "This can only end in tears"

Fact of the matter is, that the topic matter being discussed here, is not really for here.

Comments of an inflamitory nature pretaining to how "liberals" or "conservatives" act, or how one is better than the other is just inviting forum crapping.

Never the less I still see it - I just dont' really understand why, unless it's just to start making a flamewar now and again.

Have a good one folks - BTW - I don't like the decision - but that's all I have to say about that ;-)

Dave

"Comments of an inflamitory nature pretaining to how "liberals" or "conservatives" act, or how one is better than the other is just inviting forum crapping."

I agree, the concept of liberal vs conservative is fundamentally counter productive. That's why the politicians try to play on it so much. Keeps us useless. It's funny when you are libertarian, because everyone thinks you are a liberal extremist or a conservative extremist, depending on whether you are talking about drugs or taxes, 1st amendment or 2nd amendment, Iraq or affirmative action, you get the idea.

Best thing to do is laugh.

Tax revenue from Walmart? Not likely since they usually build just outside of city limits and then abandon their unrentable buildings if the city expands to include them. They just move a little farther out.

But, yes, it's disgusting. Like Czarist Russia. Like anywhere, really.

Rob Mack

This is the same Janice Rogers Brown who claimed America had a "sociallist revolution" in 1937? The same one who claims racial harrassment in the workplace should be legal? The one that claims that "senior citizens cannabilize their grandchildren" because they support government benefits? The one that American citizens current relationship to the government is an embrace of slavery? Or are you talking about a more mainstream Janice Rogers Brown?

Yes, that one.

Look, let's drop this direction--I'm obviously not going to change your mind, and you won't change mine. But I think we'd both agree that today's decision was absurd.

So, everybody still thinks it's liberal vs. conserviative. Hasn't been the case for the last quarter century. We need liberals AND conservatives - they each provide us with options which need to be considered and addressed. The American two-party system forces compromise between the two, which produces a government which is somewhat balanced, and considers the rights and needs of those who have more and those who have less.

Today, it's big vs. small. You might be a property owner, but if Wal-Mart want's it, you loose. Your fellow citizens in your state may have decided that it's o.k. for you to relieve pain through a particular medication, but if the Feds think otherwise you go to jail (paid for by your fellow citizens who thought is was o.k.) If a President decides that we need to invade another country, facts, like whether the war can be won, or whether there are wmd, are not really important.

The so-called "conservatives" are now in favor of big government deficit spending, and limited individual rights, so that we can be safe from terrorists, . The so-called "liberals" are on the side of big-business, so long as the "community" is seemingly served - doesn't matter that the real reason for doing that is that some big company gets to make a few more bucks. NOBODY seems to believe that LOCAL opinion and control, or individual rights and needs are important anymore.

The same one who claims racial harrassment in the workplace should be legal?

I believe you are referring to this:
In Hi-Voltage Wire Works Inc. vs. City of San Jose, Brown struck down a program that directed city construction contracts to minority- and women-owned firms.

A majority opinion by the way, which upheld an initiative that California voters had created in the first place.

The one that claims that "senior citizens cannabilize their grandchildren" because they support government benefits?

That's what I'm talking about! She's actually interesting! Now find me a ruling where this opinion, with which you obviously disagree, somehow negatively affected her judgement.

The one that American citizens current relationship to the government is an embrace of slavery?

YES! :D

Or are you talking about a more mainstream Janice Rogers Brown?

By mainstream, I assume you mean more of what we're getting now? Because I'm not sure that's working out so good.

Well you only made reference to one case, which seemed to suggest racial harrassment should be legal - why didn't you cite this one?

In that case, Conrad McKay was arrested for riding his bicycle on the wrong side of the street and not having proper ID. When he was searched incident to the arrest, a baggie of methamphetamine was found in his sock.

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/23/Columns/A_record_worth_some_p.shtml

Sound like someone who is racist to you?

By the way, she is from California, and was re-elected with 76% of the vote. Extremist or mainstream? You decide.

NOBODY seems to believe that LOCAL opinion and control, or individual rights and needs are important anymore.

I know how you feel, VOGuy! Really people we have to unite on one thing - the people that weasel their ways into the highest seats of power are not people you want running your life. The government we have is really unique and we shouldn't give up on the fundamental priciples on which it was built.

busterkeaton:This is the same Janice Rogers Brown who claimed America had a "sociallist revolution" in 1937?

“Protection of private property was a major casualty of the Revolution of 1937...Rights were reordered and property acquired a second class status. If the right asserted was economic, the court held the Legislature could do anything it pleased...Something new, called economic rights, began to supplant the old property rights...With the advent of ‘economic rights,’ the original meaning of rights was effectively destroyed. These new ‘rights’ imposed obligations, not limits, on the state. It thus became government’s job not to protect property but, rather, to regulate and distribute it.” - Janice Rogers Brown

James Madison: “In a just and free government...the rights both of property and of persons ought to be effectually guarded.”

John Adams: “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”

Thomas Jefferson: “It [is]...ridiculous to suppose that a man had less rights in himself than one of his neighbors, or indeed all of them put together. This would be slavery, and not that liberty which the bill of rights has made inviolable, and for the preservation of which our government has been charged.”

http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/003710.asp

Not that this really belongs in this forum and as I'm not a US citizen it's not my place to comment on your political situation but the topic kind of caught my interest. I wonder how many know that much of Stalinist Russia was built by U.S. citizens?
At the time American social scientist were very keen on Russia, they could try all sorts of ideas that they couldn't at home. Magnetagorsk (think I spelled it right) which was the largest steel producing city in the world was almost totally engineered by US citizens, it still has an 'American' area complete with southern style mansions.
I do agree that the whole liberal Vs conservative thing is in todays context absurd, the original conservative thinkers (and yes they were well educated men) must be turning in their graves, and by they way they were the founders of the Liberal parties here and in the UK.
Bob.

Not Hi-Voltage Wire Works Inc. vs. City of San Jose. I was referring to Aguilar vs Avis
http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990810/s054561.htm

I know a guy who thinks the moon landing was faked. He's interesting too.
I never called her a racist. I said she is someone who thinks racial harrassment in the workplace should be legal. Specifically that it's protected by the First Amendment which it is not, just as slander libel and child pornography are not.

I call her outside the mainstream because she often is the lone dissent on her court and frequently ignores settled case law. The "driving while black" thing is interesting, but I think it generally agreed upon that once you arrest someone there are liable to a search of their person. McKay was not illegally arrested and he is white. The vote in the McKay case was 6-1.

Well I for don't think Madison, Adams and Jefferson would be against the New Deal. Not if they have lived to see the Gilded Age and the Great Depression. Personally I kinda like Social Security and a minimum wage.

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable" (Texas v. Johnson (1989) 491 U.S. 397, 414)--that is, until today. Today, this court holds that an idea that happens to offend someone in the workplace is "not constitutionally protected." (Plur. opn., ante, at p. 18.) Why? Because it creates a "hostile ... work environment" (id. at p. 1) in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) In essence, the court has recognized the FEHA exception to the First Amendment.

You have to admit, she makes a strong case.