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.

 

Dean Lies About Eminent Domain Ruling

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Howard Dean tried to pin the recent unpopular Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain to Bush and the Republicans:



"The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is," Dean said, not mentioning that until he nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court this week, Bush had not appointed anyone to the high court.

Dean's reference to the "right-wing" court was also erroneous. The four justices who dissented in the Kelo vs. New London case included the three most conservative members of the court - Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the fourth dissenter.

The court's liberal coalition of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer combined with Justice Anthony Kennedy to form the majority opinion, allowing the city of New London, Conn., to use eminent domain to seize private properties for commercial development.


"We think that eminent domain does not belong in the private sector. It is for public use only," Dean said.

townhall.com


What a lie! The only Justice that ruled for Bush in Bush v. Gore that voted for this was Kennedy! All Court members appointed by Clinton voted it!

How he can do this is beyond me....




posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
He can do it because the Main Stream Media doesn't call him to task for comments like that. Only the people who follow politics closely are going to find out he said that. For some, it will be exactly what they wanted to hear and won't question it. Others will take his comments with a grain of salt because they know the character of Howard Dean. Then there's the rest of us who hear/read it, look into it, and see it for the blatant lie that it is and try to make others aware of it. Unfortunately, we're still few and far between, although that's changing.

Ugh, I can't believe I actually respected the guy and figured his extreme persona was just an effective spin campaign done during the primaries. Wish there was an emoticon slapping its self in the forehead. Instead I'll just give me one of these:



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Well FOX covered it (of course
), but sadly probably many sources won't. But in the end, it'll hurt him as he ratchets up his rhetoric again until he says stuff so outrageous they can no longer ignore it. At least it appears the MSM isn't repeating his lies.

BTW JJ this smiley works well for that emotion :bnghd:

[edit on 7/27/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
When you have a media system, both left and right, based upon sound-bites, you get this sort of thing. Pols can get by with stating falsehoods if they sound nice, and if they say them to the right people. They need to be held more responsible, and it's good to pick up on this sort of thing. That being said, however, it's not healthy to dwell on this sort of thing, or on the "he said she said" aspect of politics.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
When you have a media system, both left and right, based upon sound-bites, you get this sort of thing. Pols can get by with stating falsehoods if they sound nice, and if they say them to the right people. They need to be held more responsible, and it's good to pick up on this sort of thing. That being said, however, it's not healthy to dwell on this sort of thing, or on the "he said she said" aspect of politics.


That actually remindes me of Dean's comments after the whole white Christian debacle. His original excuse was, if I remember correctly, that his comments weren't meant for the public, they were for his supporters. Whoops!



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
His original excuse was, if I remember correctly, that his comments weren't meant for the public, they were for his supporters. Whoops!


Now, see, doesn't that defeat the purpose of running for a national office? You can't be saying things only for one side or the other. A two-faced politician is just about the worst it gets.




top topics
 
0

log in

join