Kelo v. City of New London,

F

frank james

Banned
1,916
2
In 2005 the homes and land of citizens was taken by the city of New London , ct.. This was done to provide land for a private developer,

with Pfizer corp. as the beneficiary. In the end Pfizer pulled out after taking huge tax breaks from New London.

This happened during a conservative administration. Call it corporate fascism, I do .

 
O

One of Five

Guest
Mr Jones said:
In 2005 the homes and land of citizens was taken by the city of New London , ct.. This was done to provide land for a private developer,

with Pfizer corp. as the beneficiary. In the end Pfizer pulled out after taking huge tax breaks from New London.

This happened during a conservative administration. Call it corporate fascism, I do .
Click to expand...
I'll go one further and call it a reason to recall the Supreme Court. Ruling against private property and for corporatism goes against the core of our.

Constitution

 
F

frank james

Banned
1,916
2
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4
It really turned my head around. I thought idea of our governments main purpose was to protect private property , and life.

This kind of perversion of the concept, for the common good , is one of the things that has gotten us into this mess.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cruisin Loser

Cruisin Loser

Super Anarchist
6,488
2,701
West Texas, Taos, New England
Mr Jones said:
In 2005 the homes and land of citizens was taken by the city of New London , ct.. This was done to provide land for a private developer,

with Pfizer corp. as the beneficiary. In the end Pfizer pulled out after taking huge tax breaks from New London.

This happened during a conservative administration. Call it corporate fascism, I do .
Click to expand...
Yeah, corporate and government fascism by the LIBERAL members of the court - Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

Dissenting - Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and O'Connor, the conservatives you love to hate, except that they were the ones who stood up for individual private property rights.

 
O

One of Five

Guest
Mr Jones said:
It really turned my head around. I thought idea of our governments main purpose was to protect private property , and life.

This kind of perversion of the concept, for the common good , is one of the things that has gotten us into this mess.
Click to expand...
wow, just twelve people did this...

think of what could happen if our Congress and our Senate and then the President did it..

 
W

Wistler

Anarchist
921
1
Cruisin Loser said:
Mr Jones said:
In 2005 the homes and land of citizens was taken by the city of New London , ct.. This was done to provide land for a private developer,

with Pfizer corp. as the beneficiary. In the end Pfizer pulled out after taking huge tax breaks from New London.

This happened during a conservative administration. Call it corporate fascism, I do .
Click to expand...
Yeah, corporate and government fascism by the LIBERAL members of the court - Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

Dissenting - Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and O'Connor, the conservatives you love to hate, except that they were the ones who stood up for individual private property rights.
Click to expand...
Besides the fact that the administration had no role in the issue, and President Bush denounced the ruling and issued an executive order for the Federal Government not to use the power that the courts granted it. Oh and the City Council of New London, which did the taking (the case is known as Kelo v. City of New London), was controlled by Democrats at the time.

 
F

frank james

Banned
1,916
2
Cruisin Loser said:
Mr. Jones taking the side of Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia - Priceless. :rolleyes:

And calling Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former litigator for the ACLU, a fascist - even better. B)
Click to expand...
Its a question of balance, and of course right and wrong. Many time the poor and disadvantaged are used as a smoke screen by the right.

Yet the corporations are god. I dig that cash is king , but dont get fooled by the misdirection.

 
Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
92,118
10,076
Earth
Let me preface my comments by chastising the party of the D, by noting that republiCUNTS rule. Now that I have satisfied the voices in the head of the demented by appropriately chastising democRATS, let me speak to the piece of steaming malarkey known as Kelo.

Kelo is the worst case I have ever seen decided by the Court. The individual has no chance. Citizens United suffers from the same problem. The company needs the land for something that will increase revenue for the government? No problem, take it from the individual. The company needs to purchase some representation? No problem, they can pay better than the individual.

So what is a pissed off individual to do, once the government gives their property away and sells their representative to the highest bidder? Well, we can take solace that the Court decided McDonald the way it did, and recognized the Second Amendment.

One out of three is better than nothing.

 
Pertinacious Tom

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,280
1,677
Punta Gorda FL
Justice Thomas, dissenting:

The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called "urban renewal" programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful. If ever there were justification for intrusive judicial review of constitutional provisions that protect "discrete and insular minorities," ... surely that principle would apply with great force to the powerless groups and individuals the Public Use Clause protects. The deferential standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply perverse. It encourages "those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and developmentfirms" to victimize the weak. Ante, at 11 (O'Connor, J., dissenting).

Those incentives have made the legacy of this Court's "public purpose" test an unhappy one. In the 1950's, no doubt emboldened in part by the expansive understanding of "public use" this Court adopted in Berman, cities "rushed to draw plans" for downtown development. B. Frieden & L. Sagalayn, Downtown, Inc. How America Rebuilds Cities 17 (1989). "Of all the families displaced by urban renewal from 1949 through 1963, 63 percent of those whose race was known were nonwhite, and of these families, 56 percent of nonwhites and 38 percent of whites had incomes low enough to qualify for public housing, which, however, was seldom available to them." Id., at 28. Public works projects in the 1950's and 1960's destroyed predominantly minority communities in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Baltimore, Maryland. Id., at 28-29. In 1981, urban planners in Detroit, Michigan, uprooted the largely "lower-income and elderly" Poletown neighborhood for the benefit of the General Motors Corporation. J. Wylie, Poletown: Community Betrayed 58 (1989). Urban renewal projects have long been associated with the displacement of blacks; "n cities across the country, urban renewal came to be known as 'Negro removal.' " Pritchett, The "Public Menace" of Blight: Urban Renewal and the Private Uses of Eminent Domain, 21 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 1, 47 (2003). Over 97 percent of the individuals forcibly removed from their homes by the "slum-clearance" project upheld by this Court in Berman were black. 348 U. S., at 30. Regrettably, the predictable consequence of the Court's decision will be to exacerbate these effects.
Click to expand...
 
Pertinacious Tom

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,280
1,677
Punta Gorda FL
Pertinacious Tom

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,280
1,677
Punta Gorda FL
Mr Jones said:
Cruisin Loser said:
Mr. Jones taking the side of Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia - Priceless. :rolleyes:

And calling Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former litigator for the ACLU, a fascist - even better. B)
Click to expand...
Its a question of balance, and of course right and wrong. Many time the poor and disadvantaged are used as a smoke screen by the right.

Yet the corporations are god. I dig that cash is king , but dont get fooled by the misdirection.
Click to expand...
Misdirection? Like saying this?

Frank James said:
In 2005 the homes and land of citizens was taken by the city of New London , ct.. This was done to provide land for a private developer,

with Pfizer corp. as the beneficiary. In the end Pfizer pulled out after taking huge tax breaks from New London.

This happened during a conservative administration. Call it corporate fascism, I do .
Click to expand...
Are you so ignorant that you don't know that the Kelo vs New London case was decided by a liberal majority on the court, relying on a previous liberal precedent? That would be a believable excuse in your case. Otherwise it's misdirection.

 
A

anthonyvop

Super Anarchist
3,071
5
Miami, Florida
Mr Jones said:
In 2005 the homes and land of citizens was taken by the city of New London , ct.. This was done to provide land for a private developer,

with Pfizer corp. as the beneficiary. In the end Pfizer pulled out after taking huge tax breaks from New London.

This happened during a conservative administration. Call it corporate fascism, I do .
Click to expand...

It isn't corporate Fascism....it is Fascism.

BTW The conservatives in the UK are conservatives in name only.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top