Lost Liberty Hotel still in the works

[Hotrod]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=45810

I would just love this to go thru

[Rohirrim]

I love it!

[clarker]

If they really push this how is that clown of supreme court justice going to defend him self from his own ruling. Say I it is ok to do this to the common folk, but not me?

[BRONCCRUSHFAN]

Money, get back. I'm alright jack keep your hands of of my stack. I hope that they push this through. the whole basis of the "American Dream" is for property ownership. I'm all for if there is a track of homes that are abandoned and condemned being reclamated, but this whole idea of eminent domain just pisses me off. The other thing that really cracks me up is that there are abandoned commercial properties, which turn into "crackhead hotels." Tear them down and reclamate those instead. This whole issue was, once again, something that the Supreme court didn't need to get involved with.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

He has a really nice, picturesque little place there!
I bet he could have never dreamed of it being replaced by a coffee shop in a hotel.

[Rascal]

!!

That's hillarious...I hope they take it from him. That entire ruling was a load of ****...thanks for protecting us you liberal morons.

[Rascal]

This is the same schmuck who thinks we should use foreign law to decide US law.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=45711

And some people think judges don't have to much power.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Rascal

!!

That's hillarious...I hope they take it from him. That entire ruling was a load of ****...thanks for protecting us you liberal morons.

Problem is Souter is a conservitive ........ Actualy Souter ruled as expected .. it is the so called liberal Judges that shocked everyone , and Scalia going "Bleeding heart "Liberal on this ..........

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Rascal

!!

That's hillarious...I hope they take it from him. That entire ruling was a load of ****...thanks for protecting us you liberal morons.

The "entire' ruling" was correct as the law stands, not in principle or common sense. Their ruling also made it clear that congress should act to change the law. Now if they would have ruled against the laws as they are that would have been legislating from the bench, you know, judicial activism. Don't you "conservative morons" have a problem with that?

[Rascal]

Slug,

I've studied the thing in depth and I've consulted several lawyers about it and each and every time they say it was ruled incorrectly (much like Roe v Wade). I'll take their word over yours or whatever article you are going to bring written by some assinine reporter.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Rascal

Slug,

I've studied the thing in depth and I've consulted several lawyers about it and each and every time they say it was ruled incorrectly (much like Roe v Wade). I'll take their word over yours or whatever article you are going to bring written by some assinine reporter.

Ask SoCalBronco. He posted a great take on it with referrences.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Rascal

Slug,

I've studied the thing in depth and I've consulted several lawyers about it and each and every time they say it was ruled incorrectly (much like Roe v Wade). I'll take their word over yours or whatever article you are going to bring written by some assinine reporter.

eminent domain has been around for ever , but what the SCOTUS did was take it 1 step futher , and thats the rub , before a county , state , city could only take your property , in the name of building a school , highway , widen roads etc ..... now after the ruling developers can take your property in the name of improving local economy , So the Supreme court didnt make a new law per say , what they did was borden the power of eminent domain....... And that shouldnt stand , that is a pandoras box in the making

[Hotrod]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

eminent domain has been around for ever , but what the SCOTUS did was take it 1 step futher , and thats the rub , before a county , state , city could only take your property , in the name of building a school , highway , widen roads etc ..... now after the ruling developers can take your property in the name of improving local economy , So the Supreme court didnt make a new law per say , what they did was borden the power of eminent domain....... And that shouldnt stand , that is a pandoras box in the making

I think the biggest change is now it can be taken for "commercial" "private commercial" use.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Hotrod

I think the biggest change is now it can be taken for "commercial" "private commercial" use.

Yeah Buddy .... with no boundries , I can see , though I read half way through the Judges writting , get confused and quit reading ..... But as I saw it , a wide open door for devlopers ......

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Hotrod

I think the biggest change is now it can be taken for "commercial" "private commercial" use.

Been that way for over a hundred years depending on what state you live in. I posted this in the 'Super Slab thread.

That's why I said the decision was based on law (existing law) and was correct according to existing law. The decision had nothing to with an all encompassing federal law, it only confirmed state law. And also, the SC justices added that congress should enact laws to protect landowners from these laws.

[enjolras]

eminent domain has been around for ever , but what the SCOTUS did was take it 1 step futher , and thats the rub , before a county , state , city could only take your property , in the name of building a school , highway , widen roads etc ..... now after the ruling developers can take your property in the name of improving local economy , So the Supreme court didnt make a new law per say , what they did was borden the power of eminent domain....... And that shouldnt stand , that is a pandoras box in the making

I think the biggest change is now it can be taken for "commercial" "private commercial" use.

Again, not true (this is turning into a crusade for me ).

They did NOTHING to broaden the power of emminent domain. In the decision they cite a very clear case of emminent domain from 1954 (And farther back to something like 1908) that mirrored the case in question. In those cases land was siezed for primarily private uses that happened to serve the greater good. The actual power of emminent domain was not extended... not one bit.

The only thing the decision did was remove the judiciary from oversight on cases of emminent domain. The judges effectively ruled that the judiciary is not an effective arbitrator of what projects truly serve the greater good. Instead they left that power in the hands of the actual judiciary.

Its all in the decision. Its all very clear.. the idea that somehow emminent domain was changed by the decision is a fantasy propogated by reporters who A) wanted a more compelling story and B) simply we're unwilling or unable to actually read and understand the decision itself.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by enjolras

Again, not true (this is turning into a crusade for me ).

They did NOTHING to broaden the power of emminent domain. In the decision they cite a very clear case of emminent domain from 1954 (And farther back to something like 1908) that mirrored the case in question. In those cases land was siezed for primarily private uses that happened to serve the greater good. The actual power of emminent domain was not extended... not one bit.

The only thing the decision did was remove the judiciary from oversight on cases of emminent domain. The judges effectively ruled that the judiciary is not an effective arbitrator of what projects truly serve the greater good. Instead they left that power in the hands of the actual judiciary.

Its all in the decision. Its all very clear.. the idea that somehow emminent domain was changed by the decision is a fantasy propogated by reporters who A) wanted a more compelling story and B) simply we're unwilling or unable to actually read and understand the decision itself.

that is more of the Rezoning bull that states came up with , this ruling from the SCOTUS kinda does away with that .....2 different things emminent domain and rezoning laws .......

[Hotrod]

Well if it changed anything or not its still wrong and not only wrong but sick and twisted with communistic overtones.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Well if it changed anything or not its still wrong and not only wrong but sick and twisted with communistic overtones.

By law, it's correct. The issue is with individual state laws, many of which that were originated in the 1800s.

That is why the ruling noted that congress should address these old laws that don't protect property owners.

Like I said, some conservatives are yelling about legislating from the bench (activist judges) and if they would have ruled against the existing laws that's exactly what they would have been doing.

[clarker]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Problem is Souter is a conservitive ........ Actualy Souter ruled as expected .. it is the so called liberal Judges that shocked everyone , and Scalia going "Bleeding heart "Liberal on this ..........

I was watching Tucker Carlson last week and he and Rachal Maddow were talking about Roberts and his bid to be on the court. Maddow of course was wailing away on him for being an conservite but Carlson said he thinks he will be another Souter. A so called conservitive judge that turns out to be way more liberal. Maddow said she didn't think that would happen but it would be nice if it did.

I don't know what that has to do with this really, but it was an interesting conversation between them.

[clarker]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

By law, it's correct. The issue is with individual state laws, many of which that were originated in the 1800s.

That is why the ruling noted that congress should address these old laws that don't protect property owners.

Like I said, some conservatives are yelling about legislating from the bench (activist judges) and if they would have ruled against the existing laws that's exactly what they would have been doing.

Roe vs Wade is a little before my time so help me out on this. Was the right to abortion the voted on (by either congress or a national vote of the public) and the ruling simply up held that law or did the ruling make it the law of the land.

If it wasn't a voted on law then in my opinion they did rule from the bench.

[clarker]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

By law, it's correct. The issue is with individual state laws, many of which that were originated in the 1800s.

That is why the ruling noted that congress should address these old laws that don't protect property owners.

Like I said, some conservatives are yelling about legislating from the bench (activist judges) and if they would have ruled against the existing laws that's exactly what they would have been doing.

Roe vs Wade is a little before my time so help me out on this. Was the right to abortion the voted on (by either congress or a national vote of the public) and the ruling simply up held that law or did the ruling make it the law of the land.

If it wasn't a voted on law then in my opinion they were legislating from the bench.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by clarker

Roe vs Wade is a little before my time so help me out on this. Was the right to abortion the voted on (by either congress or a national vote of the public) and the ruling simply up held that law or did the ruling make it the law of the land.

If it wasn't a voted on law then in my opinion they did rule from the bench.

No vote. The SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution included an "implied" right to privacy, and under the umbrella of that right, the right of a woman to make her own reproductive decisions without government interference was also "implied." But at the same time, they also limited that choice to the first trimester (completely arbitrary) which seems (IMO) to conflict with the original interpretation. It seems to be neither fish nor fowl.

[clarker]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

No vote. The SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution included an "implied" right to privacy, and under the umbrella of that right, the right of a woman to make her own reproductive decisions without government interference was also "implied." But at the same time, they also limited that choice to the first trimester (completely arbitrary) which seems (IMO) to conflict with the original interpretation. It seems to be neither fish nor fowl.

Is that not making law from the bench. I mean if the congress had passed a anti-abortion law and they shot it done. Then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.

If it were up to me I would put up issues like abortion, gay marriage ect up to a public vote. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with gay marriage for instance, but I don't want the courts inforcing my beliefs on other people without at least giving them a vote.

Abortion is the same thing. Right now Pro-Choice people have their beliefs shoved on those who are anti-abortion without at least giving them a vote in the matter. If Roe is reversed then the beliefs of anti-abortion advotacts would be forced on those who are in favor of pro-choice.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by clarker

Is that not making law from the bench. I mean if the congress had passed a anti-abortion law and they shot it done. Then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.

If it were up to me I would put up issues like abortion, gay marriage ect up to a public vote. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with gay marriage for instance, but I don't want the courts inforcing my beliefs on other people without at least giving them a vote.

Abortion is the same thing. Right now Pro-Choice people have their beliefs shoved on those who are anti-abortion without at least giving them a vote in the matter. If Roe is reversed then the beliefs of anti-abortion advotacts would be forced on those who are in favor of pro-choice.

Yeah, but rights trump votes. You can't outvote a Constitutional right. The SCOTUS has ruled over the years that many rights are implied by the Constitution, though not necessarily enumerated; things like executive privilege and the right to vote. I agree with the Court that privacy is an implied right. And I also believe that the government has no business sticking its nose into private medical decisions (the Schiavo case being a great example). The real question is, does a fetus have a separate right to live or, when does a fetus become a unique individual endowed with its own rights? That one, I can't answer.