Supreme Court says your house is theirs
07-01-2005, 09:15 AM
#61
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hurricane City, FL
Posts: 4,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=cordycord,Jul 1 2005, 11:50 AM]from hecash (quote machine not working):
"What's that article got to do with the merits of the issue?
If you've got a bone to pick with Pelosi or someone else, please feel free to start a new thread."
The point is that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi not only has NO IDEA about new legislation from Jon Cornyn, but she has no idea of the ramifications of the recent HUGE ruling by the SCOTUS, OR seemingly the legislators role in relation to the SCOTUS.
"What's that article got to do with the merits of the issue?
If you've got a bone to pick with Pelosi or someone else, please feel free to start a new thread."
The point is that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi not only has NO IDEA about new legislation from Jon Cornyn, but she has no idea of the ramifications of the recent HUGE ruling by the SCOTUS, OR seemingly the legislators role in relation to the SCOTUS.
07-01-2005, 09:59 AM
#62
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best part from Ms. Pelosi:
Anyone remember learning about this in the 7th grade?! 6th?
Q Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?
Ms. Pelosi: It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.
Ms. Pelosi: It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.
Anyone remember learning about this in the 7th grade?! 6th?
07-01-2005, 12:02 PM
#63
Registered User
Take a look at todays San Francisco Chronicle. They certainly thought that her comments were relevant to the issue. Pelosi is a politician, and politicians have the power to negate this awful decision. What she, and others, say about the decision is important to hear.
Comments about her low IQ were purely personal opinion. Agree or not, ok with me.
Comments about her low IQ were purely personal opinion. Agree or not, ok with me.
07-01-2005, 12:42 PM
#64
Registered User
Someone on NPR made the point that the Kelo decision just allowed the law to remain the way it's been for 50 years. This kind of thing has gone on for years, but the articles are usually buried on p. 3 of the "Metro" section. I can remember articles in "The Dispatch" mentioning that the Columbus (OH) city counsel was considering condemning properties because the owners wouldn't sell at the price the developer who owned the surrounding property wanted to pay.
The Kelo case just put their dirty little secret on the front page.
Here's a link to some interesting information on the Kelo case:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...04-108.ZS.html
The Kelo case just put their dirty little secret on the front page.
Here's a link to some interesting information on the Kelo case:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...04-108.ZS.html
07-01-2005, 01:26 PM
#65
Originally Posted by RedY2KS2k,Jul 1 2005, 04:42 PM
Someone on NPR made the point that the Kelo decision just allowed the law to remain the way it's been for 50 years. This kind of thing has gone on for years, but the articles are usually buried on p. 3 of the "Metro" section. I can remember articles in "The Dispatch" mentioning that the Columbus (OH) city counsel was considering condemning properties because the owners wouldn't sell at the price the developer who owned the surrounding property wanted to pay.
The Kelo case just put their dirty little secret on the front page.
Here's a link to some interesting information on the Kelo case:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...04-108.ZS.html
The Kelo case just put their dirty little secret on the front page.
Here's a link to some interesting information on the Kelo case:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...04-108.ZS.html
I'm glad of the coverage this is getting though. Unfortunately, no state legislature is going to go too far in protecting their citizens from this. At most, they will restrain only the most egregious violations.
JonasM
07-01-2005, 04:21 PM
#67
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hecash
[QUOTE] I still don't see how Pelosi's IQ is material to to the issue of whether or not a political entity should hold the right of eminent domain over your property in favor of another private person.
I think that it's patently wrong and really want to hear salient arguments from both sides.
[QUOTE] I still don't see how Pelosi's IQ is material to to the issue of whether or not a political entity should hold the right of eminent domain over your property in favor of another private person.
I think that it's patently wrong and really want to hear salient arguments from both sides.
07-02-2005, 05:47 AM
#69
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RedY2KS2k,Jul 1 2005, 09:07 PM
Since I'm never represented, but only done to by those who represent other interests, gridlock and cluelessness may not be so bad.
I know exactly how you feel.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
05TurboS2k
California - Southern California S2000 Owners
27
10-14-2009 02:30 PM