I thought Barack Obama was a strong candidate for 2008 too?

I wouldn't discount the possibility of Jeb running. Seriously.

If Jeb wins, I am going to weep.

And I'm Canadian.

Pataki is gearing up for a run but the rule is you must be an a truly awful human-being from South of the Mason Dixon to get elected in this country. He is sol no matter how good a con man he is. Terrible choices coming our way again this election cycle.

I don't know. You tell me, Lookout. Is Bush a neocon? One justice, Thomas, I think, was appointed by Bush Sr. Seven of the supremes were appointed by republican presidents - mainly Reagan. So tell me how the two Clinton appointees were able to overwhelm their fellow justices and sneak through this decision about eminent domain in the face of the opposition of the other seven? Was the decision which allowed the Hollywood thing to come down made at some time in the past when the Supreme Court had a majority of justices appointed by dems?

The court is a republican appointed court. Bush is a republican. What's wrong with Dean calling it "Bush's court"? Has Jr made public pronouncements distancing himself from recent court decisions?

What's wrong with a politician asking for campaign contributions from those who agree with his viewpoint? Just what was the decision that allows this particluar land grab and when was it made? It would be nice if you'd inform us of these things before going off on a bad tempered tirade. Why do you listen to talk radio, anyhow? There's better ways to become politically informed, IMO.

And why have you been in such a bad temper lately? Sales down?

That's not actually that surprising--as a percentage, I'd imagine more Canadians (and Europeans, for that matter) would cry than Americans would.

OH NO THEY WOULDN'T! I'm not going Canadian if another freaking Bush wins, I'm going (*dramatic music*) IRISH! :stpaddy:

Dear Mari,
<strike>shut the fuck up you whiny fucking hippy</strike> i sure am glad i took some time to collect my thoughts, because my first instinctual response to you sounded a bit too much like cartman.
if Bush had appointed even one of those justices then it would be legitimate to call it "bush's court". i don't have a problem with Dean raising money, i don't have a problem with Dean despising the recent ruling (as i think most thinking people do). I do have a problem with Dean playing a little slight of hand with the listeners by completely leaving out the fact that the justices that Bush co wants to replicate voted against it and the justices that Bush co isn't so fond of voted in favor of it.
mostly i'm just disappointed because with Dean operating in this manner i don't see much of a chance for the D's to put forward candidates that will draw the moderates (most of the country) away from the extremes (the asshats both parties have been nominating).
<strike>drop the fucking bowl, you</strike> did i say that is what happened? a majority of the court ruled against personal property rights. it wasn't just clinton's two appointees. now see, right here is the problem i've had with you since you've been back. before your exile you would vigorously argue your views, citing outside sources, researching if necessary. since you've been back you've been willing to just jump into any shit and start stirring. IMO many of your posts have been designed just to get people to start kicking you - which, let's face it - this is the cellar and there are plenty of people willing to kick away. if you have something to add - speak up. if you don't follow current events enough to know about this ruling and some of the repurcussions, that's ok - but shut the fuck up. as always, the fastest way to show your ignorance is to talk about things when you have nothing to say. because it is background noise - which i need. i can't play music in my office because i will become completely wrapped up in the joy of just listening. overpaid talking heads can be tuned out.
thank you for your concern. fortunately for my family, my sales have been very healthy as more and more people realize that putting their heads in sand doesn't work when planning for their future. i haven't been in a bad mood at all - life has actually been wonderful in my neck of the woods for some time now.

sincerely,
Lookout

Hey, Lookout, seems I can't win for losing. I got jumped on for using too many cites on the "Why do we hate the French thread?". When responding to your post, I couldn't understand what you were PO'ed about. On the one hand you seemed to be blaming the Supremes for the current law on eminent domain, on the other hand you seemed to be defending it.

Here's where you lose me, Lookout. Now maybe everyone else understands what you are saying, but I don't.

You and I tend to be on opposide sides of the political spectrum, so big deal. I can really think of only one post I made where I was out of line and that was in response to something Bruce had posted. I apologized for that post. YOU were the one who couldn't leave it alone.

If you would like to clarify what you are saying here, I would be more than willing to make a thoughtful, RESEARCHED reply and not call you names either.

i would never defend such a ruling. this is one area where i say that Radar was on the right track and not overreaching in his comments. the USSC has opened the door to large scale theft of private property - whether it happens or not, they've made it possible.

my rant that you don't seem to understand was about Dean playing loose with the reality of that ruling. the justices that the D's typically lift up as being "right thinking" ruled to strip your property rights. Dean is playing it like Bush co got together and screwed the little old lady in new england.

OK, so what you are saying is that while the largely Republican appointed Supreme court DID make this ruling, the odds would be better that a new Bush appointee would be against it, while a Supreme appointed by a democrat would be in favor of it?

Who nominated the court that made the Kelo decision?

In favor:
Stevens / Ford
Kennedy / Reagan
Souter / Bush Sr.
Ginsburg / Clinton
Breyer / Clinton

Against:
O'Connor / Reagan
Rehnquist / Reagan
Scalia / Reagan
Thomas / Bush Sr.

Thank you, UT. That clarifies the subject, immensely! Appreciate it. Interesting break down that, I'll have to think about my reply.

OK, I took a look at the court’s opinion in Kelso, and the Supremes were NOT saying that a governing body can just randomly hand private property over from one individual to another just because the second individual was a council member’s cousin or whatever:

It is further argued that without a bright-line rule
nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen A's
property to citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will
put the property to a more productive use and thus pay
more taxes. Such a one-to-one transfer of property, executed
outside the confines of an integrated development
plan, is not presented in this case. While such an unusual
exercise of government power would certainly raise a
suspicion that a private purpose was afoot, the hypothetical
cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when
they arise. They do not warrant the crafting of an artificial
restriction on the concept of public use.

The written majority opinion then goes on to say:

We emphasize that nothing in our opinion
precludes any State from placing further restrictions
on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States
already impose .public use. requirements that are stricter
than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements
have been established as a matter of state constitutional
law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain
statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings
may be exercised. As the submissions of the parties
and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of
using eminent domain to promote economic development
are certainly matters of legitimate public debate. This
Court's authority, however, extends only to determining
whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a
"public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment
to the Federal Constitution.

The development in question has the purpose of revitalizing and bringing jobs to a blighted urban area. The land will also be used to augment an existing state park and a Coast Guard Museum will be built on one of the parcels of land. The Supremes seemed to base their decision on the fact that the development would bring jobs into the area and that this constituted a “public good.” I think the hypothetical example of condemning a Motel 8 and replacing it with a Hyatt Regency would fail the court’s test of public good, since such a change would not serve to create an appreciable number of new jobs in the community, among other things. After all, if 100 people a night on average need a motel room in a given area, the same 3 maids will clean the rooms, the same one clerk would check people into their rooms etc., regardless if the place was a Motel 8 or some more swank outfit.

I agree that a Bush appointee would probably be more likely to have voted against this decision, but now that I have read it, the Court’s reasoning makes sense to me. I think Dean’s mistake was in joining the mass hysteria that has resulted from a failure to look at just what the Kelso ruling did and did NOT say.

(There, is that researched enough for you, Lookout?)

It's still stealing. GM brought a lot of jobs to Detroit when the gov stole land for them. The neighborhoods are gone and the jobs are gone. Nice work that. Government can fuck up on a scale that no private fool can match.

The sad tale of the American Automobile industry is an entire other story. Did the gov really give Henry Ford the land to build his auto plant on? I never knew that. Yeah, a lot of the workers who came to Detroit were displaced from Appalachia. My grandparents had a very nice bit of farm land where the stupid Blue Grass Ordinance Depot now stands. Why didn't the Feds put the damn thing in Paducah or on top of some useless piece of land elsewhere? I'm no fan of eminent domain, believe me. Just commenting that the Court's decision seems to have been blown out of proportion by the media. What's new? :mad: