AVENUE VIET Forum Index AVENUE VIET
An Online Community
 
AlbumAlbum   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of the webmasters, administrators and moderators of this forum. Refer to the complete disclaimer.
Kiss Your Property Goodbye
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AVENUE VIET Forum Index » Politix
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Seed



Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 1659

PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:33 pm    Post subject: Kiss Your Property Goodbye Reply with quote

Usually I am not an alarmist like La Saigonaise but I am very alarmed at the recent Supreme Court ruling. Now the government can confiscate your property for dubious reasons. What has happened to property right?
_________________
**********************
*"Ultima Ratio Liberarum"*
**********************

Proud member of the NRA, HEMA Alliance, and the Cato Institute
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Pols_R_Us



Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 2606
Location: Wherever

PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:24 am    Post subject: Re: Kiss Your Property Goodbye Reply with quote

Seed wrote:
Usually I am not an alarmist like La Saigonaise but I am very alarmed at the recent Supreme Court ruling. Now the government can confiscate your property for dubious reasons. What has happened to property right?


What happened to civil rights and due process of law for "illegal combatants"? That was just the start, the other things had to follow. If we go against our values in the name of fighting terrorism, then all our values and rights in other fields go down the drain.

That's why "liberals" started to worry so early, with an Attorney General who thinks Geneva Convention are "quaint", and police and FBI allowed to check what books you take out of the public library; it was only logical that it was gonna go from bad to worse. With the judges and justices W appointed or wants to appoint, things are gonna go in that direction for the rest of his term of office.

I'm worried, but not particularly surprised.

On that subject, Thomas Friedman wrote a very insightful editorial on the fact that, without an "heir apparent" because Cheney isn't gonna run in 2008, there is no restraint on Bush's far-right policies. Since he can't get a third term, and his veep ain't gonna run, there's nothing to limit his anti-science, head-in-the-sand stance. That's why LS left the country, he saw this coming.
_________________
satisfied content
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Seed



Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 1659

PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:03 pm    Post subject: You are getting off track Reply with quote

You are way off track. What does this has anything to do with Bush. This is a judicial decision by liberal justices. While people like you are screaming about the Patriot Act which so far have caused no harm. The government is robbing people of their properties. The Patriot Act did not cause this. This taking of private property born out of liberal concept that the government is wiser in deciding economic matter. Where are the outrage from the Left?

In this case (Kelo v. New London), it was the liberal justices who said that local government can take your property and give it to land developer - pox on their houses. The strongest dissents are from conservatives justices like O'Connor and Thomas. Those people who opposed Thomas nomination will come to appreciate the irony when their local government bulldoze their house in order to build a shopping mall.

I usually do not pay much attention to the Supreme Court because I do not give a rat ass about Roe v. Wade. But this case made my blood boil and I came to realize the need for conservative justices. We need conservative constructionist justices in the supreme court. This case destroy the liberal lies that conservatives are in the pockets of wealthy corporation. Every conservatives justices opposed it, and all liberal justices favor it.
_________________
**********************
*"Ultima Ratio Liberarum"*
**********************

Proud member of the NRA, HEMA Alliance, and the Cato Institute
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Seed



Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 1659

PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Julian Sanchez at "Reason" asked

You do wonder: Now that the "liberal" justices on the court have sided with the drug warriors against cancer patients, and with a plan to rob people of their homes for the benefit of wealthy developers, will some court-watchers on the left begin to question the wisdom of having let economic freedom become the red-headed stepchild of modern jurisprudence?
_________________
**********************
*"Ultima Ratio Liberarum"*
**********************

Proud member of the NRA, HEMA Alliance, and the Cato Institute
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Pols_R_Us



Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 2606
Location: Wherever

PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:13 am    Post subject: Re: You're the one off track Reply with quote

Seed wrote:
You are way off track. What does this has anything to do with Bush.


Bush nominatess and appoints the justices, doesn't he? He's been nominating all those far right guys and gals, what do you think all the Democrats' filibustering's been about? (shake head)
_________________
satisfied content
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Seed



Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 1659

PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 11:12 am    Post subject: Dude, you are clueless Reply with quote

Dude, you are so clueless. Bush have not appointed a single justice since he came into office. The last justice to be appointed was Clarence Thomas by Bush Sr.

You are further wrong because it is the liberal justices that voted to allow local government to rob you of your property. Had there been all conservatives justice, this would not have happened. In fact this case only strengthen my conviction that Bush should nominate more conservative judges.

For the record, all conservatives justices dissented, the strongest dissents came from O'Connor and Thomas. Now if you want to be blind and vote Democrats, don't come crying when the government bulldoze your house to build a shopping mall.
_________________
**********************
*"Ultima Ratio Liberarum"*
**********************

Proud member of the NRA, HEMA Alliance, and the Cato Institute
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Pols_R_Us



Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 2606
Location: Wherever

PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 12:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Dude, you are clueless - Look who's talking Reply with quote

Seed wrote:
Dude, you are so clueless. Bush have not appointed a single justice since he came into office. The last justice to be appointed was Clarence Thomas by Bush Sr.



I wasn't talking about Supreme Court Justices only - though Bush will have to appoint or at least nominate a couple quite soon, considering how many are old and/or ailing - but of other federal and superior court judges. Once again, what do you think all that filibuster about nominating judges is about, for crissakes? Rolling Eyes
_________________
satisfied content
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Seed



Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 1659

PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was sitting on the fence on the filibuster issue. The issue of judicial nominees is not something I care too much about. But the last two rulings from the Supreme Court forced me to choose side. It proves that Bush and the Conservatives were right and the Democrats are dead wrong. We need to stack conservative judges and justices on the benches.

Before you argue with me, you need to look at Kelo V. New London and Gonzalez V. Raich

In Gonzales V. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has pretty much unlimited power stemming from the Commerce Clause. After all, if Congress can regulate you growing marijuana in your backyard and smoking it in your living room on the basis that such behavior affects interstate commerce, all of life is economic and thus subject to Congressional legislation.

In Kelo V New London, the Supreme Court ruled that "economic development" caused by seizing one person's land and giving it to another entity who will make better use of it is a valid taking because it has a "public purpose", and the government seizing the land doesn't even have to show that the entity to whom it plans to give the property will make better use of it. In other words, as long a governmental entity puts a plan on paper, it can seize your property. Call it the decision that launched a million property seizures.

If you look at which justice rule which way and you still want to vote Democrat, you deserve to have your house confiscate.
_________________
**********************
*"Ultima Ratio Liberarum"*
**********************

Proud member of the NRA, HEMA Alliance, and the Cato Institute
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Pols_R_Us



Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 2606
Location: Wherever

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:55 pm    Post subject: Separation of Powers Reply with quote

Seed wrote:
I was sitting on the fence on the filibuster issue. The issue of judicial nominees is not something I care too much about. But the last two rulings from the Supreme Court forced me to choose side. It proves that Bush and the Conservatives were right and the Democrats are dead wrong. We need to stack conservative judges and justices on the benches.


Well, so much for the separation of powers (executive, legislative, judiciary). Judiciary is supposed to be independent, not leaning towards one party or the other. Not the case here, eh?

Look at Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed because of his conservative views and is proving himself too independent. Now the Conservatives want to impeach him. Bet THEY never heard of separation of powers!! Apparently, neither have you! Rolling Eyes
_________________
satisfied content
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
X



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 856
Location: Lala Land

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Separation of Powers Reply with quote

Pols_R_Us wrote:
Seed wrote:
I was sitting on the fence on the filibuster issue. The issue of judicial nominees is not something I care too much about. But the last two rulings from the Supreme Court forced me to choose side. It proves that Bush and the Conservatives were right and the Democrats are dead wrong. We need to stack conservative judges and justices on the benches.


Well, so much for the separation of powers (executive, legislative, judiciary). Judiciary is supposed to be independent, not leaning towards one party or the other. Not the case here, eh?

Look at Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed because of his conservative views and is proving himself too independent. Now the Conservatives want to impeach him. Bet THEY never heard of separation of powers!! Apparently, neither have you! Rolling Eyes


I couldn't agree more with Pols.

It probably takes a failed political science student to suggest party-affiliation for judicial posts. one one

You're nut! Seed.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageMSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AVENUE VIET Forum Index » Politix All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group