Poll: Impeaching SCOTUS judges

[Don Vito Corleone]

charrison:

You're completely misreading the Bill of Rights. The clause you cited says nothing about annexation for private purposes.

By way of illustration, nowhere in the Constitution is the phrase, or even the concept of the presumption of innocence mentioned. It is "read into" the Constitution, just as the Court has, today, read in the right of local legislatures to designate areas for eminent domain for private purposes.

I got an "A" in Con Law, when I went to law school years ago - I'm not reading these Amendments for the first time. Hell, the largest client of the law firm that employs me is a political subdivision of the state, specializing in urban planning.

Eminent domain, as interpreted by the courts, already included the right to wipe out entire "undesirable" neighborhoods to put them to more optimal use. I am agnostic about that practice, and downright negative about the expansion of that concept embodied in today's ruling, but this does not reflect the kind of wholesale change you seem to envision, nor does it reflect a violation of the Constitution.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court's entire purpose is to interpret the Constitution and apply it to factual scenarios. That's what they've done today. I don't like or agree with this decision, but it isn't time to starting acting like Chicken Little. The world won't come to an end, and if Congress is as passionate as you apparently are about this issue, it can amend the Constitution and moot the SC's decision.

Interestingly, the practice the Court addressed in this holding already exists, and I know of at least one instance here in Minnesota in which private land was condemned for the use of one of the state's largest employers.

 

[imported_Condor]

The liberals here just lovecd the court until this. What's wrong, don't like the true colors? Time we replaced a few of them. Bush will with your support.

 

[dahunan]

I still hope that citizens take the law into their own hands if the state steals their land from them

I have heard of people being threatened with their land being condemned so that the state will only have to pay them pennies on the dollar for it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Condor
The liberals here just lovecd the court until this. What's wrong, don't like the true colors? Time we replaced a few of them. Bush will with your support.

What do you mean, exactly? Are you implying this decision engenders more hostility among liberals than among conservatives? I don't see that's the case, particularly since conservatives are the ones advocating impeachment.

I wouldn't trust President Bush to pick judges for a Mr. Hot Buns competition, much less the Supreme Court.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DonVito
charrison:

You're completely misreading the Bill of Rights. The clause you cited says nothing about annexation for private purposes.

By way of illustration, nowhere in the Constitution is the phrase, or even the concept of the presumption of innocence mentioned. It is "read into" the Constitution, just as the Court has, today, read in the right of local legislatures to designate areas for eminent domain for private purposes.

I got an "A" in Con Law, when I went to law school years ago - I'm not reading these Amendments for the first time. Hell, the largest client of the law firm that employs me is a political subdivision of the state, specializing in urban planning.

Eminent domain, as interpreted by the courts, already included the right to wipe out entire "undesirable" neighborhoods to put them to more optimal use. I am agnostic about that practice, and downright negative about the expansion of that concept embodied in today's ruling, but this does not reflect the kind of wholesale change you seem to envision, nor does it reflect a violation of the Constitution.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court's entire purpose is to interpret the Constitution and apply it to factual scenarios. That's what they've done today. I don't like or agree with this decision, but it isn't time to starting acting like Chicken Little. The world won't come to an end, and if Congress is as passionate as you apparently are about this issue, it can amend the Constitution and moot the SC's decision.

Interestingly, the practice the Court addressed in this holding already exists, and I know of at least one instance here in Minnesota in which private land was condemned for the use of one of the state's largest employers.

No matter which way you slice, property rights were greatly weakened today. Which means we just lost another good bit of freedom.

Who knows, maybe your house will be up for sale to the highest bidder by your local gov...

This is without a doubt a ruling against the citizens.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: charrison

No matter which way you slice, property rights were greatly weakened today. Which means we just lost another good bit of freedom.

Who knows, maybe your house will be up for sale to the highest bidder by your local gov...

This is without a doubt a ruling against the citizens.

Perhaps you're right. That's certainly my concern when I say I don't support the decision. That said, this practice already existed, and I doubt it will explode to the extent that any meaningful number of people are forced out of their homes.

Honestly I'm not a person who gets all that attached to things - if the government condemned my house, I'd take the money and run, and move somewhere else. Actually that very thing is happening to my secretary and her husband, and they're grateful to take the cash and move without being bothered to sell their house. Obviously not everyone shares this view, of course, and I don't expect them to.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Condor
The liberals here just lovecd the court until this. What's wrong, don't like the true colors? Time we replaced a few of them. Bush will with your support.

What do you mean, exactly? Are you implying this decision engenders more hostility among liberals than among conservatives? I don't see that's the case, particularly since conservatives are the ones advocating impeachment.

I wouldn't trust President Bush to pick judges for a Mr. Hot Buns competition, much less the Supreme Court.

Don, you'r back! Watch it, I mean.

 

[judasmachine]

i says it once, and i says it again: let's throw [all] the bastards out and try some real democracy.

on an entirely differant note: isn't the word SCOTUS dangerously close to scrotum?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: charrison

No matter which way you slice, property rights were greatly weakened today. Which means we just lost another good bit of freedom.

Who knows, maybe your house will be up for sale to the highest bidder by your local gov...

This is without a doubt a ruling against the citizens.

Perhaps you're right. That's certainly my concern when I say I don't support the decision. That said, this practice already existed, and I doubt it will explode to the extent that any meaningful number of people are forced out of their homes.

Honestly I'm not a person who gets all that attached to things - if the government condemned my house, I'd take the money and run, and move somewhere else. Actually that very thing is happening to my secretary and her husband, and they're grateful to take the cash and move without being bothered to sell their house. Obviously not everyone shares this view, of course, and I don't expect them to.

I wish they would do that with a rental I have in GA! I had a liberal preacher living in it for the last ten years and he was too lazy to trim the shrubs. The only thing he ever reported being broken was the AC. The repairs to the moisture damage in the foundation are making me sell it below market. Getting market would be a plus.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: charrison

No matter which way you slice, property rights were greatly weakened today. Which means we just lost another good bit of freedom.

Who knows, maybe your house will be up for sale to the highest bidder by your local gov...

This is without a doubt a ruling against the citizens.

Perhaps you're right. That's certainly my concern when I say I don't support the decision. That said, this practice already existed, and I doubt it will explode to the extent that any meaningful number of people are forced out of their homes.

Honestly I'm not a person who gets all that attached to things - if the government condemned my house, I'd take the money and run, and move somewhere else. Actually that very thing is happening to my secretary and her husband, and they're grateful to take the cash and move without being bothered to sell their house. Obviously not everyone shares this view, of course, and I don't expect them to.

I wish they would do that with a rental I have in GA! I had a liberal preacher living in it for the last ten years and he was too lazy to trim the shrubs. The only thing he ever reported being broken was the AC. The repairs to the moisture damage in the foundation are making me sell it below market. Getting market would be a plus.

Slum lord.

You didn't keep an eye on your own property. :roll:

 

[Jadow]

it'll be good to know that the family house, that my pa raised his kids in, my grandpa helped lay the foundation, will become 10 stalls in the new Wal Mart parking lot.

If they would try to take my land for "private" enterprise, not a road or highway, I will defend it with a hail of bullets and blood will be shed. Despite what the Supreme Court says.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison
Today the 5th amendment took a terrible blow. It appears people on the left and right are equally upset with a major loss to property rights. Todays ruling means that anyone can force you out of your property as long as they have the money to do it.

Most of ruling from the liberal side of court I can live with because I beleive there ruling to be honest difference of opinion, but today ruling is blatently against the average citizen.


So the quesiton is, should we impeach these judges that voted in favor of greatly weaking property rights of citizens?

Discuss...

I'm shocked :shocked:. Are you against this decision?

Is there anything that could be done with USSC Judges?

Can they be impeached and kicked off the bench???

I dont know why you are shocked.

And yes judges can be impeached and removed.

This is an interesting topic. How could they be impeached...charges brought up in Congress? What valid charges could be brought up?

I guess you think the courts amending the bill of rights is ok?

It was OK for RVW. When the courts start making law, when do they stop?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: charrison

No matter which way you slice, property rights were greatly weakened today. Which means we just lost another good bit of freedom.

Who knows, maybe your house will be up for sale to the highest bidder by your local gov...

This is without a doubt a ruling against the citizens.

Perhaps you're right. That's certainly my concern when I say I don't support the decision. That said, this practice already existed, and I doubt it will explode to the extent that any meaningful number of people are forced out of their homes.

Honestly I'm not a person who gets all that attached to things - if the government condemned my house, I'd take the money and run, and move somewhere else. Actually that very thing is happening to my secretary and her husband, and they're grateful to take the cash and move without being bothered to sell their house. Obviously not everyone shares this view, of course, and I don't expect them to.

I wish they would do that with a rental I have in GA! I had a liberal preacher living in it for the last ten years and he was too lazy to trim the shrubs. The only thing he ever reported being broken was the AC. The repairs to the moisture damage in the foundation are making me sell it below market. Getting market would be a plus.

Slum lord.

You didn't keep an eye on your own property. :roll:

I had to pay a manager to do that. I was busy serving the American taxpayer in the hell holes of the world.The manager had second class work done for first class money. Unfortunately, I don't think he was a liberal, but he should have been!

 

[2cpuminimum]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: charrison

No matter which way you slice, property rights were greatly weakened today. Which means we just lost another good bit of freedom.

Who knows, maybe your house will be up for sale to the highest bidder by your local gov...

This is without a doubt a ruling against the citizens.

Perhaps you're right. That's certainly my concern when I say I don't support the decision. That said, this practice already existed, and I doubt it will explode to the extent that any meaningful number of people are forced out of their homes.

Honestly I'm not a person who gets all that attached to things - if the government condemned my house, I'd take the money and run, and move somewhere else. Actually that very thing is happening to my secretary and her husband, and they're grateful to take the cash and move without being bothered to sell their house. Obviously not everyone shares this view, of course, and I don't expect them to.

Suppose that the government decided your house was worth a dollar? It wouldn't be all that far fetched or difficult for that to be arranged. Would you be so happy to take your dollar and run?

On this topic, rich corporations have always been able to take what they want and they don't need to use eminent domain. The traditional way of getting poor people out of the way is to have them declared insane and put away.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: charrison

How can one expand eminent domain without weaking property rights. Talk about doublespeak.

Have you ever actually read the Fifth Amendment? It's not about property rights. The relevant portion just says the government cannot annex private property for a public purpose without providing just compensation. It's completely separate from today's ruling.

I suggest you dig a little deeper into the history of eminent domain, which has been around since the inception of the United States.

Umm.. yer back?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: charrison
Today the 5th amendment took a terrible blow.

Discuss...

Disagreement with a decision (and, FWIW, I disagree with today's decision) is not a basis for impeachment.

Further, I don't agree that today's ruling in any way weakens or violates the Fifth Amendment; it just expands the applications in which eminent domain can be used.

you must subscribe to the fscked up version of 'public' that the authoriatarians on the supreme court have.


i do agree, however, you can't impeach them merely because you don't like how they rule on the bench. they have to do something else (and judges are impeached all the time)

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
I can't believe the vote. I'm unbelievably disappointed. I can't remember, but can't Congress overrule any SC decision with a 2/3 or 3/4 vote?

No. That would vitiate the entire concept of federalism. The only way Congress can overrule the Supreme Court is by Constitutional amendment.

direct election of senators vitiated federalism a long time ago. now all we have is a farce.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
I can't believe the vote. I'm unbelievably disappointed. I can't remember, but can't Congress overrule any SC decision with a 2/3 or 3/4 vote?

No. That would vitiate the entire concept of federalism. The only way Congress can overrule the Supreme Court is by Constitutional amendment.

The amount of ignorance exhibited in this thread is simply stunning.

Federalism has nothing whatever to do with the courts and their relationship to the legislative branch. Federalism refers to a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority (for example, the U.S. federal government) and lower-level constituent units (for example, the states).

If anything, this ruling affirms federalism, for it states (in part) that local governments, not federal judges, are best equipped to determine if a development project will benefit a community.

Frankly, if you believe that federal judges should be able to interfere with local eminent domain decisions, you are AGAINST federalism.

The Fifth amendment has already been quoted in this thread. The operative phrase is, "public use". In the current case, the officials of New London, Connecticut, believed that the urban renewal project they envisioned would benefit the community as a whole. Whether claiming eminent domain in pursuit of such projects is constitutional turns on the meaning of "public use". If indeed the project will significantly add to the economic environment of the community, and thus benefit the citizens, then there's very little difference between this sort of situation and (for example) seizing private property to build highways.

The central question in all these cases is: Is the local governement acting in the best interests of its citizens.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DonVito
charrison:

You're completely misreading the Bill of Rights. The clause you cited says nothing about annexation for private purposes.

then why did the court reach the 5th amendment question? they were discussing whether this particular taking fell into 'public use' throughout the whole thing.

 

[Tab]

--> UNBAN CADsortaGUY <--

Whoa? He's banned? OMG HELL YEA! How did it happen!

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Tab

--> UNBAN CADsortaGUY <--

Whoa? He's banned? OMG HELL YEA! How did it happen!

Someone had the panties in a bunch.. I won't name names...

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: charrison
Today the 5th amendment took a terrible blow. It appears people on the left and right are equally upset with a major loss to property rights. Todays ruling means that anyone can force you out of your property as long as they have the money to do it.

I thought you'd be all for anything that gets more welfare leeching liberals tossed out into the street ("where they rightfully belong")

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: charrison
Today the 5th amendment took a terrible blow. It appears people on the left and right are equally upset with a major loss to property rights. Todays ruling means that anyone can force you out of your property as long as they have the money to do it.

I thought you'd be all for anything that gets more welfare leeching liberals tossed out into the street ("where they rightfully belong")

WTF are you talking about?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: charrison

No matter which way you slice, property rights were greatly weakened today. Which means we just lost another good bit of freedom.

Who knows, maybe your house will be up for sale to the highest bidder by your local gov...

This is without a doubt a ruling against the citizens.

Perhaps you're right. That's certainly my concern when I say I don't support the decision. That said, this practice already existed, and I doubt it will explode to the extent that any meaningful number of people are forced out of their homes.

Honestly I'm not a person who gets all that attached to things - if the government condemned my house, I'd take the money and run, and move somewhere else. Actually that very thing is happening to my secretary and her husband, and they're grateful to take the cash and move without being bothered to sell their house. Obviously not everyone shares this view, of course, and I don't expect them to.

I wish they would do that with a rental I have in GA! I had a liberal preacher living in it for the last ten years and he was too lazy to trim the shrubs. The only thing he ever reported being broken was the AC. The repairs to the moisture damage in the foundation are making me sell it below market. Getting market would be a plus.

Slum lord.

You didn't keep an eye on your own property. :roll:

I had to pay a manager to do that. I was busy serving the American taxpayer in the hell holes of the world.The manager had second class work done for first class money. Unfortunately, I don't think he was a liberal, but he should have been!

Unintentional slum lord, that's ok.

You served in the Military? Thanks for your service :thumbsup:

I really don't believe we have a Liberal Vs Conservative problem as the talk show hosts would lead us to believe. It is a class and religious war going on, period.

 

[Zebo]

Absolutly! They can't read simple english which the last words of the Fifth Amendment are.

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Thank goodness Bush may get to appoint a couple of conservatives, who all voted in dissent, standing up for the individual, the little guy, who will overturn this ruling at a later time.