quote:
Moding:
To all those people the chances that fighting back against some guy who stole their wallet might get them seriously hurt or killed at no risk to the attacker and just giving up the 30 bucks and drivers license might very well save their life.
That's why they make guns.
quote:
Maradon! impressed everyone with:
Ah, "Nutball Anti-Walmart claim #271"Uh, no, Wal-Mart doesn't displace anybody. Sorry, only state governments have that power last I checked, not Wal-Mart.
If a state government is going to exercise imminent domain to make room for MY store, I sure as shit wouldn't turn them down on the offer, particularly since even if I did someone else would take them up on it.
Wal-Mart and the other businesses that are built as a result of this are completely blameless, and it's idiotic to suggest that it's somehow their fault.
"They close down the stores afterwards"? HAHA! Wow that really adds up! I bet they make a fucking MINT by building a new store than just arbitrarily closing it!
I'm not anti-Wal-mart. Its an... interesting business to say the least. Admittedly, I do believe that its not as reputable since Sam Walton died, but that's pretty evident to anyone who's looked into the company at all. Nice assumption though.
As far as targetting the businesses, you cannot lay the blame purely at the government's feet or at the businesses' feet. You also cannot exempt either. Regardless of who to blame, it does happen (several other similar cases are pending in different states) and this Supreme Court case affects things like this. Businesses do put pressure on smaller towns to have these superstores built, with the promise of bringing money to the town. This can backfire against the towns, and often does.
As far as the closing down a store aftwards, its actually an interesting Wal-Mart tactic used in more rural areas that some superstores have tried to emulate and failed at. You build two stores in two towns that are within a reasonable distance from each other. Now this is going to have an effect on local business, regardless of who you blame for it. After some time, a third store is built in between these other two stores and the the two stores on the edge are closed. People will be reliant on the superstore for at least some goods, and will drive the extra distance to this store. You're now only running one store that is almost guaranteed to do well. You'll be getting roughly the same profit overall for less expense. So yes, this does earn them a mint. While they pay more to set this up, the profits are greater in the long run.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Vorbis said:
If you're going to argue about something, at least spell it correctly. e-m-i-n-e-n-t domain. With an "e".
In all fairness, Maradon spelled it wrong first and nobody jumped his shit 
quote:
Kermitov Model 2000 was programmed to say:
In all fairness, Maradon spelled it wrong first and nobody jumped his shit
I know better than to try and argue a point with Maradon, though. 
I didn't notice that until his later post on the first page
SOCIALISM
quote:
Mightion Defensor had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Kinda surprised the Supreme Court forgot about that bit.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Espio Idsavant booooze lime pole over bench lick:
You seem to assume that this ruling gives local governments to just take property, no questions asked. It doesn't. Granted, it may make it harder to win your case in court, but its not stripping your right to due process.
Actually, that's precisely what it does. All local governments have to prove is that another entity would provide more tax revenue than the existing entity, and according to this supreme court ruling they can redistribute that property with no further questions asked. The people who are already being affected by this recieve NO further due process because of this ruling.
Wave goodbye to chruches and non-profit organizations that generate no tax revenue. I can hear the rhetoric now - "The YMCA generates no tax revenue, and attracts vagrants, increasing crime rates and lowering property values. Clearly we must use eminent domain to redistribute their property."
Wave goodbye to entrepreneurs whose businesses might not generate as much tax revenue off the bat as a national chain. Who cares if they paid for the land fair and square? They don't generate enough tax revenue, so the local government can just swoop in and redistribute their land.
Wave goodbye to the fifth amendment. It's still in the document, but it's now meaningless because any meaning it might have is now entirely up to local governments to decide.
Get used to the idea of worshipping local governments as royalty for fear of them re-zoning your entire neighborhood as a commercial sector.
Social freedom stems from economic freedom. Economic freedom stems from the sovereignty of individual property rights. This ruling says the STATE decides your individual property rights.
Welcome to the glorious People's Republic of Amerika, the world's first Kleptocracy and judicial oligarchy.
The five judges responsible for this ruling need to be impeached. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 06-24-2005 at 11:47 PM.
quote:
x--Noxhil2O-('-'Q) :
I don't understand how we are a judicial oligarchy. Didn't the supreme court decline to use power here
By omission of action, they ruled that rights which belonged to the people now belonged to state governments. Because of this ruling there is no longer any check on state government's use of eminent domain.
quote:
x--Noxhil2O-('-'Q) :
The Supreme Court may have been negligent in its responsibilities here, but that hardly makes us a state that is ruled by the Supreme Court. The ball is now in the court of the GOP-controlled Congress. If they were to pass a law that restricts the use of eminent domain here, I'm sure there would be no problem.
Congress can't pass a law that restricts the use of eminent domain here because it would be redundant - that's what the fifth amendment did, and the precedent set by this ruling just totally invalidated the fifth amendment.
It's the definition of legislating from the bench.
quote:
Maradon! impressed everyone with:
Congress can't pass a law that restricts the use of eminent domain here because it would be redundant - that's what the fifth amendment did, and the precedent set by this ruling just totally invalidated the fifth amendment.It's the definition of legislating from the bench.
It's not, it may be a failure to strike down a single unconstitutional law, but this really gives the supreme court no extra power, let alone dicatorial power. The state legislature in question could still create a law that states 'Eminent domain shall not be invoked solely for reasons of economic development.' and the whole mess would go away, the ruling of the SC wouldn't invalidate that.
Our government IS powerful, however it was built with 'checks and balances' that you can take advantage of provided you will put in the legwork and time.
The chance of it hapening to you though? Probably negligable. You rarely hear of eminent domain being exersized. (Or I could just be oblivious, having not seen any articles on it lately.)
quote:
Talonus probably says this to all the girls:
As far as the closing down a store aftwards, its actually an interesting Wal-Mart tactic used in more rural areas that some superstores have tried to emulate and failed at. You build two stores in two towns that are within a reasonable distance from each other. Now this is going to have an effect on local business, regardless of who you blame for it. After some time, a third store is built in between these other two stores and the the two stores on the edge are closed. People will be reliant on the superstore for at least some goods, and will drive the extra distance to this store. You're now only running one store that is almost guaranteed to do well. You'll be getting roughly the same profit overall for less expense. So yes, this does earn them a mint. While they pay more to set this up, the profits are greater in the long run.
Funny you bring that up -- that's exactly what is happening here now that you mention it like that.
We have a store in Morehead City (~15 miles away) and one in New Bern (~20 miles away). They're building one in the middle now, which is my hometown (Havelock).
This could be interesting.
quote:
Azakias was naked while typing this:
Chances are there will be a lawsuit of monumental size when the state govts try to enforce this the first time. The actions of taking over the property will be delayed until the ruling, and blah blah blah.Our government IS powerful, however it was built with 'checks and balances' that you can take advantage of provided you will put in the legwork and time.
The chance of it hapening to you though? Probably negligable. You rarely hear of eminent domain being exersized. (Or I could just be oblivious, having not seen any articles on it lately.)
This just was the lawsuit of monumental size, it's over now, the SC has upheld the regulation.
Eminent domain makes sense for public interest projects like highways or railroads, but to increase tax revenues? 
quote:
From the book of Zaza, chapter 3, verse 16:
Christ, this is retarded -- and if I lived in the states, I would offer a hearty fuck you to the "liberal" judges that passed it. Way to go with personal freedom over coroporate interests there guys.Eminent domain makes sense for public interest projects like highways or railroads, but to increase tax revenues?
I thought more money in the hands of the government was in the public intrest. 
quote:
Naimah had this to say about Pirotess:
I thought more money in the hands of the government was in the public intrest.
An increase in public services in the interest of better meeting the requirements of individual rights is always in the public interest, but pinching people's homes to increase economic growth is the exact opposite.
The Supreme Court has been busy.
quote:
Aw, geez, I have Reynar all over myself!
http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20050627/D8B00KHO0.htmlThe Supreme Court has been busy.
They also ruled that companies who make file-sharing software can be sued, but only if they intend their software to be used for that purpose.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Reynar wrote:
http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20050627/D8B00KHO0.htmlThe Supreme Court has been busy.
Well look at that, they got something right. 
Texas is trying to draft state legislature to limit the powers of this new eminent domain law. I hope every other state follows their example, that will show the Surpreme Court that we don't tolerate this crap.
quote:
Reynar had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Texas is trying to draft state legislature to limit the powers of this new eminent domain law. I hope every other state follows their example, that will show the Surpreme Court that we don't tolerate this crap.
Which I suspect was the intent of the court, letting the legislature decide.
Brought to you by Fark. Dr. Gee fucked around with this message on 06-28-2005 at 03:16 PM.
quote:
We were all impressed when Reynar wrote:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3239023Texas is trying to draft state legislature to limit the powers of this new eminent domain law. I hope every other state follows their example, that will show the Surpreme Court that we don't tolerate this crap.
Show them what? It's the job of the supreme court to not give a damn about what the public will or will not tolerate, they interpret laws to the best of their legal ability, public opinion does not factor into it. They didn't declare that using eminent domain to forcibly buy people's land in order to make room for economic development was good, they declared that it was possible within the constitution, enacting laws in accordance with the public will within the constitutional framework is still the job of the legislatures.
quote:
Mod had this to say about Pirotess:
Show them what? It's the job of the supreme court to not give a damn about what the public will or will not tolerate, they interpret laws to the best of their legal ability, public opinion does not factor into it. They didn't declare that using eminent domain to forcibly buy people's land in order to make room for economic development was good, they declared that it was possible within the constitution, enacting laws in accordance with the public will within the constitutional framework is still the job of the legislatures.
Show them that it was a horrible decision to make. Duh.
And that decision goes against everything the Constitution and this country was founded on. Because they are going out of their to punch holes in it does not make it right.
And now that the states are stepping up to put them in their place, maybe they will think twice before trying to pander to big business.
quote:
Dr. Gee had this to say about Captain Planet:
Free Star media attempts to use eminent domain to build a hotel on Justice David H. Souter's property.Brought to you by Fark.
Haha, excellent!
quote:
Reynar had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Show them that it was a horrible decision to make. Duh.And that decision goes against everything the Constitution and this country was founded on. Because they are going out of their to punch holes in it does not make it right.
And now that the states are stepping up to put them in their place, maybe they will think twice before trying to pander to big business.
They're not punching holes in anything, the US constitution specifically makes an exception for eminent domain laws, declaring them as not unconstitutional as long as the land is being taken for public use and the owner is given just compensation. The court has found among other things that a city government's broad development plan that includes sites being made available through eminent domain for potential use for private business is a 'public work' in the fifth amendment sense even though the land may in the end not be used by a public entity.
Seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what this decisions means, if a group of states go out and pass laws that prohibit the use of eminent domain it is not some sort of assault on the supreme court, it is the democratic process at work. It is the purpse of the legislatures to enact laws protecting rights the people wish protected which are not protected by the constitution but are also not themselves a violation of the constitution.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Mod!
They're not punching holes in anything, the US constitution specifically makes an exception for eminent domain laws, declaring them as not unconstitutional as long as the land is being taken for public use and the owner is given just compensation. The court has found among other things that a city government's broad development plan that includes sites being made available through eminent domain for potential use for private business is a 'public work' in the fifth amendment sense even though the land may in the end not be used by a public entity.Seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what this decisions means, if a group of states go out and pass laws that prohibit the use of eminent domain it is not some sort of assault on the supreme court, it is the democratic process at work. It is the purpse of the legislatures to enact laws protecting rights the people wish protected which are not protected by the constitution but are also not themselves a violation of the constitution.
I'm not entirely sure what exactly you're arguing with me here for.
I said it was a stupid decision by the Supreme Court, and I'm glad states are stepping up to counter it, it should send a message to them if they are paying attention.
The rest of what you said is pretty much meaningless to my statement.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Reynar:
I'm not entirely sure what exactly you're arguing with me here for.I said it was a stupid decision by the Supreme Court, and I'm glad states are stepping up to counter it, it should send a message to them if they are paying attention.
The rest of what you said is pretty much meaningless to my statement.
If the supreme court is influenced by messages sent to it by the states in it's interpretation of constitutional law, it is not doing it's job, legal interpretation is supposed to be independent of public opinion.
quote:
Mod had this to say about dark elf butts:
If the supreme court is influenced by messages sent to it by the states in it's interpretation of constitutional law, it is not doing it's job, legal interpretation is supposed to be independent of public opinion.
Are you even serious?
No one is infallable, and it would be stupid to completely ignore feedback from the citizens of this nation on decisions you made that just potentially changed their entire life.
Yes they operate within the law, but for this case the Spirit of the Constitution definatly pointed towords land owner rights. These folks used their own personal judgement to alter that. If they can't see past their own noses and accept feedback, then they aren't doing their job. Reynar fucked around with this message on 06-28-2005 at 06:34 PM.
quote:
Reynar had this to say about Knight Rider:
Are you even serious?No one is infallable, and it would be stupid to completely ignore feedback from the citizens of this nation on decisions you made that just potentially changed their entire life.
Yes they operate within the law, but for this case the Spirit of the Constitution definatly pointed towords land owner rights. These folks used their own personal judgement to alter that. If they can't see past their own noses and accept feedback, then they aren't doing their job.
What are supposed to be the most qualified legal scholars in the land taking feedback from the public at large on a technical legal matter like this would definitely be a bad thing. If the public at large wants to influence how the court rules, there are ways to amend the constitution.
quote:
Mod had this to say about the Spice Girls:
What are supposed to be the most qualified legal scholars in the land taking feedback from the public at large on a technical legal matter like this would definitely be a bad thing. If the public at large wants to influence how the court rules, there are ways to amend the constitution.
'Supposed' is definatly the appropriate word here. There are zero qualifications for being a Supreme Court Justice. If you have enough political swing to get put there, you're set.
OBviously they shouldn't let the public dominate their decision making process.
But if they start passing through verdicts that has nearly the entire country up in arms; maybe they should sit back and reflect that perhaps they aren't acting in the best interests of our nation.
That's all I have to say on it, you can keep on disagreeing with me if you like but I'm heading home now.
quote:
Reynar's fortune cookie read:
'Supposed' is definatly the appropriate word here. There are zero qualifications for being a Supreme Court Justice. If you have enough political swing to get put there, you're set.OBviously they shouldn't let the public dominate their decision making process.
But if they start passing through verdicts that has nearly the entire country up in arms; maybe they should sit back and reflect that perhaps they aren't acting in the best interests of our nation.
That's all I have to say on it, you can keep on disagreeing with me if you like but I'm heading home now.
They're the branch that is supposed to uphold the law even against the will of even a majority of the population, the manner of their appointment is such that they are by far of all the branches of government the least responsible to the public. Applying the equal protection clause of the constitution to black people would at various points in history had the whole nation up in arms.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Reynar gently hums:
Are you even serious?No one is infallable, and it would be stupid to completely ignore feedback from the citizens of this nation on decisions you made that just potentially changed their entire life.
Yes they operate within the law, but for this case the Spirit of the Constitution definatly pointed towords land owner rights. These folks used their own personal judgement to alter that. If they can't see past their own noses and accept feedback, then they aren't doing their job.
YGBFSM. It's rather sad, really, that Mod knows better than some locals how the US Constitution works. Justices of any stripe have absolutely no business paying attention to what the public wants or to any "messages" sent them via passage of new laws. The entire fucking purpose for appointing them for life is to avoid such influences, and free them to decide based upon both the letter and the intent of thelaw within the context of modern society.
It's perfectly okay to disagree with the decision, but implying that Supreme Court Justices should bow to public pressure is, frankly, insane. Even I could make quite a strong case that re-zoning in support of a city's economic development plan is in the public interest, and that such re-zoning is for public use even if developed privately.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
