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 Lost
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 shut
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 right.
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
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:09:31 -0700
--
Bush's favorite judges are radical
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 with most civil rights
For the most part
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...
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
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
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
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
--
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
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 has
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=usvol=467invol=229
From: A.Melon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
Date: Thu
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=usvol=467invol=229
Interesting that
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
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=usvol=467invol=229
Interesting that the
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
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 switch,
: 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 compartment,
torch any remaining hoses, slice the tires
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,
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 opinion
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
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]
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Tyler Durden wrote:
How do you take out a bulldozer?
Anti-tank mine?
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 of the
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
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. The Bushies
27 matches
Mail list logo
