http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050706-094903-3663r.htm
"At the grass-roots, the most amusing development is a push by a citizens'
group to seize the Weare, N. H., home of Supreme Court Justice David H.
Souter, author of the Kelo opinion, for a "development" project to be
called the "Lo
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Tyler Durden wrote:
> Well, fat chance. Do the liberals actually DO anything besides talk? At
> least the rabid Christian right can organize some painful activities. The
> liberal "left" only seem to try to make enough of a stink for someone else
> to do something. As the feds
The question is not whether there's a division -- of course there is --
but whether liberals are upset enough about this decision to turn
against justices who mostly support the modern liberal paradigm.
Well, fat chance. Do the liberals actually DO anything besides talk? At
least the rabid Ch
At 12:32 PM 6/30/2005, A.Melon wrote:
> Well, James Dobson (right wing Christian evangelical) is targeting some of
> these same judges, so I don't think the Democrat & Republican division
> you're pointing to here is all that valid. In other words, some of those
> same judges are hated by the rig
ugh about this decision to turn
against justices who mostly support the modern liberal paradigm.
> >From: "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bill Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
>
A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bill Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:09:31 -0700
--
> Bush's favorite judges are radical activists when it
> comes to interference wi
The proposed taking through eminent domain, of S.C. Justice David Souter's
home, for the more profitable use as a 'Lost Liberty Hotel' and 'Just
Deserts Cafe'...
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
---
Secrecy is the cornerstone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy...
--
> Bush's favorite judges are radical activists when it
> comes to interference with most civil rights
For the most part, it was conservative judges, judes
hated by the democrats with insane extravagance, that
voted for against this decision.
Bush's favorite judge is probably Thomas, who vo
What the hell are all of you smoking? This court has *talked* about
restricting inappropriate use of the commerce clause, but when it comes to
*doing*, they're 100% behind 100% Federal expansion *through* the Commerce
clause.
Well, ya' gotta a point there. Actually, I WISH I were smoking some
What the hell are all of you smoking? This court has *talked* about
restricting inappropriate use of the commerce clause, but when it comes to
*doing*, they're 100% behind 100% Federal expansion *through* the Commerce
clause.
Doesn't anyboy actually LOOK at whats going on anymore, or are we all
At 10:36 AM 6/24/2005, J.A. Terranson wrote:
> Not surprising at all. The Bush camp's court agenda is spearheaded by
> members of the Federalist Society which wants to roll back many of the SC's
> decisions of the early-mid 20th century (esp. the Social Security Act and
> the expansion of the Co
It's an appalling decision, and as Alif says, it's nothing that hasn't
been happening for years already. Sad to see it formalized, though.
Bush's favorite judges are radical activists when it comes to
interference with most civil rights, especially for non-citizens
or people outside US boundarie
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, A.Melon wrote:
> > >Maybe you should take another look at who voted how. The Bushies
> > >dissented on this opinion. Go figure.
> >
> > Not surprising at all. The Bush camp's court agenda is spearheaded by
> > members of the Federalist Society which wants to roll back many
> At 10:19 PM 6/23/2005, you wrote:
> >On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jay Listo wrote:
> >
> >> Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you
> >> know you've been Bush-whacked.
> >
> >Maybe you should take another look at who voted how. The Bushies
> >dissented on this opinion. G
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Steve Schear wrote:
> At 10:19 PM 6/23/2005, you wrote:
> >On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jay Listo wrote:
> >
> > > Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you
> > > know you've been Bush-whacked.
> >
> >Maybe you should take another look at who voted how.
At 10:19 PM 6/23/2005, you wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jay Listo wrote:
> Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you
> know you've been Bush-whacked.
Maybe you should take another look at who voted how. The Bushies
dissented on this opinion. Go figure.
Not surpr
At 10:19 PM 6/23/2005, you wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jay Listo wrote:
> Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you
> know you've been Bush-whacked.
Maybe you should take another look at who voted how. The Bushies
dissented on this opinion. Go figure.
Not surpr
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Tyler Durden wrote:
> How do you take out a bulldozer?
Anti-tank mine?
> >From: "A.Melon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >The principle of using the takings clause to transfer private property
> >to private parties has already been approved by the Supremes. This is
> >but another variation.
> >http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=467&invol=229
>
>
From: Jay Listo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you
know you've been Bush-whacked.
Yes, because so many of the current justices have been appointed by Bush...
...oh, wait
(You might want to look at which justices joined this opinio
From: "A.Melon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The principle of using the takings clause to transfer private property
to private parties has already been approved by the Supremes. This is
but another variation.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=467&invol=229
Interesting that
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jay Listo wrote:
> Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you
> know you've been Bush-whacked.
Maybe you should take another look at who voted how. The Bushies
dissented on this opinion. Go figure.
--
Yours,
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you
know you've been Bush-whacked.
J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Tyler Durden wrote:
What this equates to is, whoever had more money than you can take away your
home. Previously, it was just the occasional me
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Tyler Durden wrote:
> What this equates to is, whoever had more money than you can take away your
> home. Previously, it was just the occasional men-with-guns that could do
> this, but now they effectively have proxies everywhere.
It just makes formal (and official) what has
inciple of using the takings clause to transfer private property
to private parties has already been approved by the Supremes. This is
but another variation.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=467&invol=229
> >From: "A.Melon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Tyler Durden wrote:
Holy crap. Some shitty little township can now bulldoze your house
because someone wants to convert the space into a Waffle House.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/
Where's Tim May when you need him? Where's the RAGE?
How do you take out a bulldozer? (Remember, bulldoze
This is very bad news. A lot of people will loose
their homes to private 'economic developers'. It
certainly means no right to have a permenant home.
When suburbs start developing, the people are going to
be evicted over and over. How long will this continue?
If they cant do any good for individu
PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
> How do you take out a bulldozer? (Remember, bulldozer operators can
> easily be replaced.)
thermite through the engine block, frag bomb in the engine compart
Quoting Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> How do you take out a bulldozer? (Remember, bulldozer operators can easily
> be replaced.)
RPG7 should do it. They're known to be able to take out a Bradley.
--
Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not
"It's just this little chromium swi
> How do you take out a bulldozer? (Remember, bulldozer operators can
> easily be replaced.)
thermite through the engine block, frag bomb in the engine compartment,
torch any remaining hoses, slice the tires, puncture the brake lines.
you don't need someone to tell you this. takings clause abuse ha
Holy crap. Some shitty little township can now bulldoze your house because
someone wants to convert the space into a Waffle House.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/
Where's Tim May when you need him? Where's the RAGE?
How do you take out a bulldozer? (Remember, bulldozer operators can easil
31 matches
Mail list logo
