It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: (Breaking) Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I personally think that the Supreme Court justices who passed this decision need to be impeached. I know there is not a set standard for the removal of Supreme Court Justices but the legislative branch does have the power to remove a Supreme Court Justice. With Tom Delay stating that Congress needs to Control the courts I wouldn't be suprised if impeachment legislation is introduced.

Today there is a petition that has been started to request Congress again impeach the Supreme Court Justices.

www.petitiononline.com...




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   
.
This is supposed to be a capitalist nation.

But the supreme court has managed to support theft of property as long as some local government approves of that theft.

If you are trying to obtain property for a commercial project, you have to try to either offer a high enough price for a property or give some share of the proposed project or live with a property owners decision not to relinquish their property rights, Otherwise it is stealing.

But Washington is full of criminals, what else can you expect from anyone there?
.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   
This decision by the supreme court is an outrage. Public should mean for public use not private use and profiteering. I urge everyone to email and/or write their senators and congressmen to complain about this and to propose new laws protecting private property from the whim of some corporation who wants to take over your land. Maybe if a few people send a few sample letters to congressmen saying some corporation is going to demand their house and land to build a new mall or some silly little monument in memory of those who died centuries ago, they'll get the point. Private property is not supposed to be so easily taken by other private parties for their own profit, desires or greed, revenge, or whatever you call it. Someone please defend our constitution. I guess we do need some new Supreme court justices. Obviously those there now have gone over the hill.


I will support impeachment of the justices who voted in favor of private land getting confiscated for private use. I thought I read O' Conner voted against it but I see that name on the impeachment list. Now I'm not sure who's who on the list as far as this issue goes.

[edit on 23-6-2005 by orionthehunter]

[edit on 23-6-2005 by orionthehunter]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
heres the text of this case if anyone is interested instead of jumping to conclusions: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

[edit on 23-6-2005 by namehere]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
I personally think that the Supreme Court justices who passed this decision need to be impeached. I know there is not a set standard for the removal of Supreme Court Justices but the legislative branch does have the power to remove a Supreme Court Justice. With Tom Delay stating that Congress needs to Control the courts I wouldn't be suprised if impeachment legislation is introduced.

Today there is a petition that has been started to request Congress again impeach the Supreme Court Justices.




are you insane? we cant give congress control of the courts, unless you want to destroy our checks and balences, theres a reason influence is limited.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Nothing to see here. Please go about your daily consumption of corporate products.



By the way, tents are on sale at Wal-Mart .

(This is not paid ad by Walmart. This was merely an idle comment to attempt humor at a deplorable situation. The poster is not associated with Walmart Discount Stores, Walmart SuperCenter, Walmart Neighborhood Markets, Walmart Automotive, Walmart Drugs, Walmart Credit Card, Walmart Bank, Walmart Gas Stations, Walmart Sweat Shops, Walmart / Sam's Club, Walmart / Netflix, Walmart Foundation, or any past, present or future Walmart enterprise in any space, time, dimension or level of consciousness. Although, I hear employees do get a free tent if their home was demolished during the birthing process of the store.)




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by orionthehunter

I will support impeachment of the justices who voted in favor of private land getting confiscated for private use. I thought I read O' Conner voted against it but I see that name on the impeachment list. Now I'm not sure who's who on the list as far as this issue goes.

[edit on 23-6-2005 by orionthehunter]


Thats a petition to remove all those who voted for Bush in 2000, read the thing.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
are you insane? we cant give congress control of the courts, unless you want to destroy our checks and balences, theres a reason influence is limited.


No not today, but check back tommorow you may get a different answer


Anyways, the ability for the legislative branch to impeach a judge is a part of the checks and balances of the United states government. Below you will find a list of legislative counterbalances over the judiciary.


Sole power to pass Constitutional amendments (by two-thirds majority and with the consent of three-quarters of the states)

Power to determine the size and structure of the courts

Power to determine the budgets of the courts

Responsibility for confirming judicial nominees

Power to impeach and remove judges

Power to determine courts' jurisdiction (except Supreme Court's original jurisdiction)


Link



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mainer
Thats a petition to remove all those who voted for Bush in 2000, read the thing.


LOL! Looks like I needed to look at it as well. A friend emailed it to me and I didn't even look at it.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mainer

Thats a petition to remove all those who voted for Bush in 2000, read the thing.


I do not know how you came to that conclusion here is the final portion


[VI. Conclusively, we the undersigned, and all people of the United States,regardless of party affiliation, and as patriots with COMMON SENSE, do hereby declare that this court denied us equal protection under the law, and ALL OF OUR VOTES WERE NEGATED AND INVALIDATED. These five justices cast a cloud of suspicion over the body of the Supreme Court, causing the following result:

A. An ILLIGITIMATE PRESIDENT AND LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD ...one unable to govern effectively, thereby jeopardizing democracy at its very core with WORLDWIDE consequences.

VII. They failed to remain unbiased and nonpolitical by dictating to the governed that they had "chosen " their president for them, as if they were parents sending children to bed while they decided who the president would be.

VIII. We the undersigned, being of legal voting age, and not children to be told to go to bed, are outraged at... and embarrassed by... these offenses committed by the five aforementioned justices, and are further insulted by the failure of two of the named to even bother to sign their prejudiced judgement, calling into question their abilities to fulfill their obligation to morally uphold their civil duty as unbiased civil servants to those of us who pay their salaries. We therefore proceed to do the only "civil" thing left to do, ...and with somber,sorrowful spirits ,yet aching with mighty strength and perserverence for justice, do hereby attempt to restore respect for this once revered institution, the Supreme Court of the United States of America. We therefore hereby CALL FOR THEIR IMPEACHMENT! www.petitiononline.com...


It only mentions the president it does not state what you think it does, I see it as nothing more then a petition to remove/impeach those 5 members of the supreme court.

[edit on 6/23/2005 by shots]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I hate to say so, but all the conservatives have screamed at these bleeding heart liberals about these liberal ass judges in the supreme court, and now maybe some of you can see what they were talking about.
Banjo



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   


Just to set the record straight:

Anthony Kennedy - appointed by Ronald Reagan - Conservative
www.supremecourthistory.org...

David Souter - Republican - appointed by George Bush I
www.supremecourthistory.org...

Stephen G. Breyer - appointed by Bill Clinton - liberal
www.supremecourthistory.org...

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - appointed by Bill Clinton - liberal
www.supremecourthistory.org...

John Paul Stevens - appointed by Gerald Ford - moderate
www.supremecourthistory.org...

Trying to paint this action as a liberal conspiracy is just plain wrong. The reality is that the Republican principles of states rights and appealing to corporate greed is the major influencing factor, IMO.

Clearly, with so many of the 'for' judges being appointed by Republican presidents, the argument that this is a liberal conspiracy is completely false. Please refrain.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I guess I'll take the 'Ozark Trail Tent' ShadowHasNoSource.
I wonder if you can connect two of them together???
I prefer lots of space.


Aside from the jokes this sucks!
97% of the people disagree according to an MSN poll vote. Could this be reversed somehow or do we have to 'live with it'?



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   
this is bull*%#*

with regards to the indian revenge. if they are willing to bascially rewrite the us constitution to take away joe citizens property who says they wont rewrite the agreement with the indian tribes to take their reservations away of course only because they have a better use for the land. yeah right!

everyone is in danger who resides on land coveted by a wealthier and/or government agency.

scary and very depressing.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I haven't really read too much about the ruling yet, but this is wrong, and not previously unheard of. The local city government did this in the city I lived in to build a baseball stadium. (not a road, not a sewer, but a baseball stadium) - and it was only a class A club. Now, not only did this NOT produce tax income, but they are now in almost $50 million in debt (this is a suburb with 20k people, not a major metro city). The local officials obviously didn't know best (in this case, they assured us it wouldn't cost the city money) and they're laying off city employees, closing parks and pools and paying the off the stadium out of their general fund. In addition to the stadium a half vacant strip mall was put in, and sits where there were about 30 homes, an apartment complex, and a few small businesses (which were 'tax generators' themselves)

...just my 2 cents.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   
By the attitudes I read here & elsewhere it sounds as if It's almost time for the 100 million man march. Tell them either represent us or leave - while you still can.


[edit on 24-6-2005 by outsider]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   
It could just be that the SC is setting up the legal groundwork to allow the Nation to develop an interstate mass transit system like bullet trains or the like. Once they have the legal framework to take land, even in municipalities, they will have an easier road to possibly developing the infrastructure for the next insterstate highway of the future. Could this be the underlying agenda for the Supreme Court?



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 02:00 AM
link   


By the attitudes I read here & elsewhere it sounds It's almost time for the 100 million man march. Tell them either represent us or leave - while you still can.


On one of the other boards I've been reading on this subject, they suggest a 100 million GUN march - everyone who marches comes packing. Legal, as long as they stay holstered. I think it would send a powerful message, although the risk for violence would be a bit too high, IMO.

A scary response to a scary ruling?



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 05:25 AM
link   
.
For the record,

Sandra Day O'Connor gave a scathing dissent on this descision,

She got it correct as she usually does.

Kudos to her, as the very first woman judge and one of the best judges in recent history [Florida 2000 election ruling not withstanding].
.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mainer

Originally posted by Passer By
It would probably lead to numerous WAKO type incidents.


FIRST TITOR!


Wow...Had not thought of that...If Americans are serious to the point of revolution about anything, it's their land, their Families, and their homes. I don;t even own a home yet, but I'd take up arms to defend the home of someone unjustly losing their home in this manner.

As I said before, people will be dying over this decision.




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join