Is the US Supreme Court out of control???

[shooter2]

They recently ruled that a town (New London, CT I think) could condemn residential, private, property so that it could be sold for commercial development because that commercial use would generate more tax revenue for the city. With that kind of ruling I suppose they could also condemn your property because someone wants to put a gas station there. Where does it end? Or does it....

[wills]

It seems the Appointed for Life Supreme Court held when the Elected By The People Legislature of a state permits an Elected By The People City Government to determine there is a public purpose in economic redevelopment, it is not for Appointed for Life Federal Judges to overturn that decision. “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.”

So do we or do we not want Appointed for Life Federal Judges to micromanage state and local government? Or do we want them to micromanage, so long as their opinions agree with ours?

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf

[NVcurmudgeon]

We get the kind of government that our apathy deserves. Legislatures and executive branches are full of country club Republicans who believe that business can do no wrong; more of the "if it's good for General Motors it's good for America" mentality. Meanwhile, the courts are dominated by lefty judges who believe that the proper business of government is to grow. Sometimes an issue will come along that can be manipulated to serve BOTH governmental interests. That's a win-win situation for all players at the public feeding trough. Politicians only do what we allow them to do. Maybe it will change when we have 90% voter turnout, an informed electorate, and pigs learn to fly.

[carpetman]

I think when a government takes over property for some other use it's called Immanant domain or some such. Here in San Angelo,they were going to build a Paseo---I never understood it's full concept. Well anyways many old business were leveled and they had an open area--several blocks. In the middle was a Mexican food restaurant. This restaurant is individually owned---not by the city. It was called Enriques(Spanish name for Henry). I've wondered for years how this was fair and legal. To give you the rest of the story. There is a fellow here named Henry Hogeda that has worked his whole life in the restaurant business and seems to be successful at it. He and family were the Enrique folks. For years prior to Enriques,he had a restaurant called Henry's. He no longer had it---rumor was he lost it in a **** game. The new owner was in a posistion of making financial decisions for the school system. Seems as though several of his friends that were in various bussineses did work on the place at highly inflated prices and the school got charged. I understand it has a fine air conditioning system and lots of "chrome plating" and stainless steel. Several hundred thousands and perhaps over a million spent on the place. Dont know the real value. The scheme was detected and this guy along with some of his co conspirators went to prison. Now Mr Hogeda has the place back and just a couple weeks ago re-opened Henry's.

[wills]

Eminent Domain

Over on avenue D, near the fort?

Point is the federal courts arent going to stop local government from halfwit real estate deals, and do we want them (the federal courts) that involved in our lives?

[grumble]

If the courts can't (or won't) stop real estate deals by local gov'ts, who can? Seems to me this decision by the Supremes just opens the door for any greedy town council to obtain prime real estate at a price THEY (not the seller) choose. The opportunity for corruption and malfeasance is now unbounded. IMO.

[wills]

1. "They" dont choose the price.
2. The Supreme Court said it is not the business of the federal courts, it left the matter to the states.

[carpetman]

Wills---Yes Enriques is on Ave D near the Fort. More of the story since you asked. At the corner of Bell and Pullium on the SE corner is a mexican food restaurant now called Panchitas or some such. Henry Hogeda started it as I think Little Henry's and the owners of that are taking over Enriques from the Hogedas.

[wills]

Los Panchitos
(325) 486-1694
1601 Pulliam St

Havent been there. I think there used to be a safeway & gas station on that corner, guess that got redeveloped, and I think there was some kind of state social services office just south of safeway

Nothing new
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=467&page=229

[grumble]

Wills, you got me on the State/Federal Court thing. I didn't realize they limited the decision to merely excluding the Fed Courts from the process. As I understood it, it went through the state courts and the state got 'Cert' to appeal to the Supremes. My misunderstanding, I guess.

I was under the impression that condemned property was bought by gov't entities based on a "fair value" (not "market value") appraisal. The gov't entity chooses the appraiser, and given the usual tight circle of cronies in local gov'ts, they effectively set the price. Here, when the county wants to widen a road, impinging on someone's private land, they pay a set fee (well below market value) and the landowner has no reasonable recourse. If it's not like that elsewhere, I'll profess ignorance.

If we trust gov't entities to do what's right and to be fair, this would be a good decision. I'm a bit more cynical than that.

[wills]

They were complaining that it did not meet the public purpose test of the Fifth Amendment. The S. Ct., as I read the opinion, said the federal courts have traditionally deferred to the legislative branch to determine what is a public purpose. If the State legislature wants to allow its cities to condemn for that purpose, it does not violate the Fifth Amendment to The Constitution of The United States.

I haven’t checked the law of New Mexico, but the measure of compensation for property acquired by eminent domain where I live is “fair market value”. If the owner does not like the offer, and refuses, the acquiring authority can go to condemnation.

There are a limited number of appraisers who do condemnation in part because it is way more complicated than the one or two page forms they do for residential mortgages. At one time it may have been the practice for governmental entities to “lowball” the offers, but that is long gone. It’s faster and cheaper to make a good offer and get done with it.

[grumble]

"There are a limited number of appraisers who do condemnation... At one time it may have been the practice for governmental entities to “lawball” the offers, but that is long gone..."

I gotta chuckle at that! The explanation is long and involved, but hereabouts, there is ONE appraiser, ONE surveyor, and ONE person to do the condemnation paperwork, and surprise-surprise, they're all the same person.

I understand what you're saying about "fair market value," and that's the most common standard I've heard about most of my life. A friend in Texas, who was also a landowner here, introduced me to the ways of "takings clauses" by local gov'ts, here and in TX when counties wanted to widen roads and put in drainage sewers respectively. The upshot in both of his cases boiled down to the "fair value" and "market value" distinctions, and the "market" part of the valuations didn't apply. The respective gov't entities did their condemnations at prices well below what the land would have sold for on an open market. He was not a happy Jose' when all was said and done.

In an earlier post, you asked if we really wanted the federal courts involved in such things. As a rule of thumb, I'm in agreement with that philosophy. Until, that is, other gov't agencies overstep their bounds and those courts are the only possible recourse John Q. Citizen might have to remedy real or imagined wrongs.

I really appreciate your insight and logic. Good discussion!

[wills]

1 Kings 21

21:1 And it came to pass after these things, [that] Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard, which [was] in Jezreel, hard by the palace of Ahab king of Samaria.

21:2 And Ahab spake unto Naboth, saying, Give me thy vineyard, that I may have it for a garden of herbs, because it [is] near unto my house: and I will give thee for it a better vineyard than it; [or], if it seem good to thee, I will give thee the worth of it in money.

21:3 And Naboth said to Ahab, The LORD forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee.

21:4 And Ahab came into his house heavy and displeased because of the word which Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him: for he had said, I will not give thee the inheritance of my fathers. And he laid him down upon his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no bread.

21:5 But Jezebel his wife came to him, and said unto him, Why is thy spirit so sad, that thou eatest no bread?

21:6 And he said unto her, Because I spake unto Naboth the Jezreelite, and said unto him, Give me thy vineyard for money; or else, if it please thee, I will give thee [another] vineyard for it: and he answered, I will not give thee my vineyard.

21:7 And Jezebel his wife said unto him, Dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel? arise, [and] eat bread, and let thine heart be merry: I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.

21:8 So she wrote letters in Ahab's name, and sealed [them] with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the nobles that [were] in his city, dwelling with Naboth.

21:9 And she wrote in the letters, saying, Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people:

21:10 And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And [then] carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.

21:11 And the men of his city, [even] the elders and the nobles who were the inhabitants in his city, did as Jezebel had sent unto them, [and] as it [was] written in the letters which she had sent unto them.

21:12 They proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people.

21:13 And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him: and the men of Belial witnessed against him, [even] against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died.

21:14 Then they sent to Jezebel, saying, Naboth is stoned, and is dead.

21:15 And it came to pass, when Jezebel heard that Naboth was stoned, and was dead, that Jezebel said to Ahab, Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give thee for money: for Naboth is not alive, but dead.

21:16 And it came to pass, when Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, that Ahab rose up to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it.

21:17 And the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying,

21:18 Arise, go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, which [is] in Samaria: behold, [he is] in the vineyard of Naboth, whither he is gone down to possess it.

21:19 And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Hast thou killed, and also taken possession? And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the LORD, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine.

21:20 And Ahab said to Elijah, Hast thou found me, O mine enemy? And he answered, I have found [thee]: because thou hast sold thyself to work evil in the sight of the LORD.

21:21 Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel,

21:22 And will make thine house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah, for the provocation wherewith thou hast provoked [me] to anger, and made Israel to sin.

21:23 And of Jezebel also spake the LORD, saying, The dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel.

21:24 Him that dieth of Ahab in the city the dogs shall eat; and him that dieth in the field shall the fowls of the air eat.

21:25 But there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the LORD, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up.

21:26 And he did very abominably in following idols, according to all [things] as did the Amorites, whom the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

21:27 And it came to pass, when Ahab heard those words, that he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly.

21:28 And the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying,

21:29 Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days: [but] in his son's days will I bring the evil upon his house.

This is considered the earliest reported case.

[shooter2]

Yes, it had already been through the lower courts and, as I understood it, this was the end of the line for the home owners. In other words, the city could now go through the process of "acquisition" (whatever that may be) and or comdemnation.

I understand the need for the process of eminent domain for things like a freeway system. That is the "greater public good". But I have a real problem when they can take your home(s) for a commercial enterprise simply because it pays more taxes into the city coffers. It would seemingly open the door for all kinds of shenanigans by city (and other) governments. What, for example, could stop them from taking your small cabinet shop and selling it to a car dealer? The list goes on...

[wills]

What stopped the State of Hawaii from taking a landlords' house and selling it to the tenant? Where was the complaining then?

[wills]

Easier reading here

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-108

[fatnhappy]

It seems the Appointed for Life Supreme Court held when the Elected By The People Legislature of a state permits an Elected By The People City Government to determine there is a public purpose in economic redevelopment, it is not for Appointed for Life Federal Judges to overturn that decision. “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.”

So do we or do we not want Appointed for Life Federal Judges to micromanage state and local government? Or do we want them to micromanage, so long as their opinions agree with ours?

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf


No! This is about the "appointed for life" Federal Judiciary protecting the codified private property rights of individuals. If the thief is local does that make the theft less painful?
This is nothing more than a case of local government stealing property from one owner and transfering it to another private citizen for the express purpose of generating tax revenue. It's the Poletown case part duex.

Used to be the locals didn't want certain people of color messing with their all white elections. Was the federal judiciary wrong in considering such cases as the poll tax or literacy acts? It's called rights protection and it is absolutely the purview of the federal judiciary ala the 14th ammendment.

BTW the original writing of the Declaration of Independence (borrowing on John Locke) didn't include "pursuit of happiness" it was ownership of property.

[wills]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/michiganstatecases/supreme/073004/24048.pdf

Havent studied Poletown carefully, but did not the Michigan Supreme Court find in favor of the landowner in the latest iteration of the poletown case, above?

As far as protection of rights, yes the courts did consider the matter and concluded the fifth amendment was not violated.

[fatnhappy]

Yes, that's what they concluded, and they're wrong. WRONG!


How is it that Justice Souter's property is already under political attack?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45029


It's because he was stupid enough to empower local zoning boards, that may or may not be corrupt, to make such decisions without regard to a landowners rights. He empowered town boards to use eminent domain as a weapon against political opponents if they choose. I'm sure Justice Souter will weather this storm, but how many of you believe you would?
How much does it cost to "buy" 3 individuals on a town board? I'm sure it's cheaper than paying for land on the open market to hold outs. I'm sure it's cheaper than buying a Senator from NY or former President from Arkansas. Ask Denise Rich.


Mark my words, men will die over this. When farms that have been in the family for generations are seized for malls and housing developments it'll be a declaration of war. When Churches and non-profit non-taxed entities have their property seized to transfer to tax paying businesses it will be an assualt on freedom.

This same court has ruled that skin color can be considered for law school enrollment.

This same court has upheld criminal penalties for free speech.

This same court has used international mores instead of codified legislation and the US Constitution to determine the validity of the death penalty.
So much for respecting State's rights when, deference to elected officials that made the laws, judges that applied the laws, and juries OF ORDINARY CITIZENS DETERMINED THE INDIVIDUAL FACTS AND METED PUNISHMENT AS WARRANTED BY THOSE FACTS were all thrown out the window at the whim of 5 Justices.

5 Justices have decided you have no protection of your property rights. You can't speak out against Chuck Schumer 90 days before an election. You can have your daughter's application to law school thrown out because her skin color isn't dark enough.

Anybody excited at the prospect of Miller being revisited by this court? How free are we again?

[Logan]

http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html

[Willbird]

One also has to remember that States rights ARE involved, in my skimming of the opioion of the supremes it seemed the State and Local laws had a large impact on what could or could not happen there.

The key to this is to push for State and Local law changes that prohibit this kind of thing.

I also have to wonder how many of the people who are losing their porperty actually VOTE when it comes to Local, State, and federal elections. Planning and Zoning comittees, city council members, Mayors, state legislators, State Governers, Fed Legislators (confirm supreme court justices) , and Presidents are all elected positions, and we all have ONE vote, PLEASE USE it.

Bill

[Linstrum]

RIGHT ON, WILLBIRD!

The information and ideas set out by Fatnhappy are especially frightening for residents of California and those other states that have had a Prop 13 "voter tax revolt" where property taxes have been stabilized and kept to reasonable levels for decades. This is because as soon as a protected low tax pre-Prop 13 owned property is sold, those reasonable tax levels IMMEDIATELY go out the window and the taxes are jacked up sky-high for the new owners. If more taxes are wanted from my property, all the county needs to do is condemn my ranch and turn it over to a new owner who will now pay taxes four times higher than what I pay now.

Supreme Court Justices are not immune to impeachment and recall, but it has been a long, loooong time. Chief Justice Earl Warren was the last U.S. Supreme Court Justice that I remember being in a big enough mess to face impeachment, his decisions, including "Brown Versus Board of Education" on desegregation, stirred up A LOT of protest and in 1956 I remember nearly every car I saw had an "Impeach Earl Warren " bumper sticker on it even though he had just been a very popular California governor two years earlier. In California we got rid of three of them at once, California Chief Justice Rose Bird, and Associate Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin in a 1986 recall election.

[grumble]

"One also has to remember that States rights ARE involved..."
"The key to this is to push for State and Local law changes that prohibit this kind of thing."

No argument from me there, Bill. But, the Supremes are supposed to interpret the Constitution, supposedly the highest and most basic law of the land. States and local gov'ts can make just about any laws they wish, so long as they fit within the framework of the Constitution, and it is the Supremes who make that determination.

With rulings like this, the words of the Constitution become almost meaningless, no longer meaning what they clearly say. While I certainly don't oppose people getting involved in their local gov't and doing what they can to influence local law, I don't think it is the "key" to undoing outrageous decisions by the Supremes. What this ruling does is to provide almost carte blanch (sp?) to state and local lawmakers to devise laws that strip people of their personal property rights. As Clarance Thomas said in his dissent, there is almost no taking that can not be construed to be of some greater benefit to one party than to another. So, I would argue that the "key" is not local involvement, but rather encouraging apointment of SCOTUS justices that actually read the Constitution before they make such spurious rulings.

"I also have to wonder how many of the people ... VOTE ... PLEASE USE it..."

Again, no argument, but again, it's like pissing in the wind. Sadly, most voters either don't understand or they agree that the Constitution has to "evolve" and be interpreted according to the needs of the day. And, since we are muzzeled for 90 days before an election, the time period that's most critical to influencing open-minded voters, the truth (or untruth) about any candidate can't be told. Add to that the ballotbox corruption that's so prevalent and "winked at" by incumbent politicians, and the vote is rendered essentially impotent. So, again, the solution is to pressure the powers that be to get SCOTUS justices that can actually read and understand the Constitution. For those of you who live in the NE part of the country, and those on the left coast, it is YOUR elected officials who are supporting these travesties. Write your senators and congresspeople. Call your state legislators. Make sure they understand that the next justices appointed by the prez are CRITICAL to the survival of the Constitution.

[wills]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html#3

[grumble]

That's a lot of heavy reading, Wills! Was there something in particular that you wanted to make a point about?

Justice Thomas's dissent (from the link you provided y'day) pretty much says the things I'd like to say about "public use" and "public purpose" if that's what you were getting at.

The right to own personal property is one of the most basic and fundamental rights, even before freedom of speech, and religion. It ranks right up there with the right of self defense. Anything that diminishes that right, or makes it less certain, undermines the basic foundation people use to run their own lives. The fact that a gov't entity has the POWER to unfairly take property doesn't make it any more palitable when they actually DO it.

[shooter2]

Wills, good parallel. I'd forgotten about Naboth.

And to all, good discussion which is exactly what I had hoped for. I intend to write my three DC reps and hope you and many others will do the same. We've already lost a bunch of liberties under the guise of the "Patriot Act". I do not think this has been tested before the court, but it should be. As shooters we know how much we've lost to the gun control crowd. Frankly, this decision on property rights bothers the hell out of me. Who knows what **** they'll foist on us next. Friends, it's death by a thousand cuts. JMHO...

[Willbird]

I think of many things as mechanisms, and most mechanisms have ways to store energy, flywheels, or pendulums, these smooth out the motion of the mechanism.

I think the three branches of governmant are a mechanism, and the supreme court moves and changes very slowly. What we see going on there is sort of an echo of politics as they were when those justices were appointed.........Socialist control of the legislative branch for such a long period of time has come home to roost, the will of the people took the legsilative branch away from them, and by the looks of it the executive one as well, and now the powers of those two combined will take the Judicial branch away from them as well.

Socialists VOTE............and in recent elections so have belivers in a democratic republic....I myself will never give up fighting by all means called for to maintain and support the liberties we have, and win back the ones we have lost....................nothing GOOD is EVER easy.......But everyman (and everywoman) is more like US than like them.

Bill


Bill

[wills]

Well, Grumble, more for your reading pleasure, i guess.

My point, if there is one, is as near as I can understand, the court didn’t change anything. It’s as though the court said “the sky is blue” and all of a sudden everyone noticed for the first time that the sky is blue.

And, one of our legislators has already proposed an amendment to Art. 1 Sec. 17 of our constitution. You might want to encourage your legislators in that direction.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/791/billtext/HJ00019I.HTM

[grumble]

I'll agree there! By golly, the sky IS blue!! <GGG>

Seriously, I'm afraid you're right that this most recent decision on takings is just one more rung on the same ladder. Previous decisions seemed to be more narrowly defined and didn't seem to be quite as sweeping and blatently "grasping" as this one. And, they didn't seem to have the potential to affect ME, which, I humbly confess, is a major factor in getting my interest. Somehow, taking property from rich landbarons in Hawaii, as communistic as that was, never entered my radar screen. The fact that I was much younger when that ruling was made might have some influence on my level of interest, too. <G>

I certainly appreciate the links you've provided. They increase the quality of the conversation considerably.

[wills]

I'll agree there! By golly, the sky IS blue!! <GGG>

Seriously, I'm afraid you're right that this most recent decision on takings is just one more rung on the same ladder. Previous decisions seemed to be more narrowly defined and didn't seem to be quite as sweeping and blatently "grasping" as this one. And, they didn't seem to have the potential to affect ME, which, I humbly confess, is a major factor in getting my interest. Somehow, taking property from rich landbarons in Hawaii, as communistic as that was, never entered my radar screen. The fact that I was much younger when that ruling was made might have some influence on my level of interest, too. <G>

I certainly appreciate the links you've provided. They increase the quality of the conversation considerably.

Here is one more thing, a hot topic here, and these people have gotten organized

http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/index.htm

[grumble]

This is the link wills provided about a TX Constitutional amendment:

"BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by
adding Section 17A to read as follows:
Sec. 17A. A political subdivision of this state may not take
private property through the use of the power of eminent domain if a
primary purpose of the taking is for economic development.
SECTION 2. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be
submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005.
The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the
proposition: "The constitutional amendment to prohibit a political
subdivision from taking private property for the primary purpose of
economic development."

Like most knee-jerk amendments and reactionary bills, this only addresses one specific aspect of the larger problem. The problem is unfair takings, and more specifically, the definition of "unfair." If this amendment passes, it won't be long until another amendment will be needed that addresses takings for "social factors." Then, "community development." After that, there'll be something else.

Takings for roads, railways, and public parks I think most will agree might be for the public good. After that, it becomes a more debatable situation, and weighs the "Power of the Crown" to take what it wants to further its own ends, against the "Subject of the Crown's" ability to keep what he thinks is his. It's the nature of a bureaucracy to reinforce and expand its own powers and authority, and the duty of citizens to try to prevent such power-grabbing. I fear, however, that our main weapon in stopping that power-grabbing, the Constitution, is getting dismantled.

[grumble]

" Here is one more thing, a hot topic here, and these people have gotten organiized:
www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/index.htm"

I just got off the phone with the Governor's office. Matt, the phone PR guy, said he'd look at the proposed Texas constitutional amendment. I didn't get into the inadequacies of the bill with him. <GGG> This must be a big issue in Santa Fe too, good ol' Matt had a prepared response, about how "the Governor feels that property rights are the cornerstone... blah, blah, blah." I'm pretty mad at Gov Richardson, though. He's a Demo (as everyone knows), and he hasn't done anything to irritate me. I have to admit he's been a good Governor, and that's irritating! I've spoken with Matt in the past, under the previous administration, so he must be a State employee, not a political appointee. Last time, though, I ended up dealing with the Lt Governor -- I think he was bored and wanted something to do. Richardson wants to run for Prez in '08, so he has to at least pretend he and his office are really busy all the time. Trappings of power, y'know. <GGG>

[carpetman]

The title is:Is the Supreme Court out of control? Hell they wrecked any chance of an "election" in 2000. Had Gore won,this would be a 5 year old ongoing thread.

[AnthonyB]

Carpetman, I have seen you post this same idea several times and have let it go in the past - not this time. Can you please explain how the SC "wrecked" the 2000 election? Tony

[carpetman]

AnthonyB---Without asking you are a Bush fan. Had it gone the other way,I'm sure it would be obvious to you then. There was a truckload of ballots that did not get looked at---what would with all the other delays had it hurt to have atleast looked at them?

[Willbird]

I wish they had looked at them too, because I do not think Mr. Gore won the popular vote either.


Bill

[fatnhappy]

AnthonyB---Without asking you are a Bush fan. Had it gone the other way,I'm sure it would be obvious to you then. There was a truckload of ballots that did not get looked at---what would with all the other delays had it hurt to have atleast looked at them?


that's a load of bullshit. Isn't it funny how in every single recount George W. had more votes than Al Gore. EVERY SINGLE ONE!
How exactly did did the Supreme Court hand Bush a victory when he had more votes?
Or is the new election standard that we change the rules after the election and then recount until we like the result?

The Supreme court actually got that one right, the US Constitution codifies the electoral power of the individual states for the purposes choosing Presidential Electors with the respective state legislatures, exclusively. The Florida Supreme Court had zero jurisdiction to revise the laws set forth by the legislature. One more case of the judiciary legislating from the bench, instead of interpreting the law. I guess it's the natural tendency of men in power to tell us what's good for us rather than obey and protect the perogatives of the electorate as expressed by majority vote.

BTW, since when do "state's rights" supecede individual liberty? The entire bill of rights (with the sole exception of prohibition) was written expressly limit governmental power, and it's not an inclusive list. States don't have the right to trample civil liberties protected by the constitution, thanks to the 14th ammendment.

[AnthonyB]

C-Man, I base my opinion strictly on the law on not on any political preferences. I have read the Supreme Court decision very carefully and there was no mention of any ballots that had not been counted in the suit. The suit referred only to ballots that had already been counted twice by machine. The Supreme Court ruled that hand-counting votes in three different counties using three different standards to determine the intended choice did not meet the requirements of the equal protection clause and effectively gave those votes more weight than votes in other counties. Seven of the justices agreed that this was a violation of the equal protection clause, but they split 5-4 on what to do about it. They ordered the recount stopped based on these problems, and under Florida law, there was no way to re-count all the ballots in the state under the same standard in time to meet the time requirements in U.S. code. I would have been satisfied with the wisdom of this decision no matter who won. Most people who blame the SC for the Bush presidency forget that it was Gore who first went to the courts to get the original election results tossed out. I still don't see how the SC "wrecked" the 2000 election. Tony

[carpetman]

AnthonyB---Guess we agree to disagree here. You say no mention of any uncounted ballots---but what was in the truck? The truck made tv like OJ's ride. Willbird doesnt think Gore won--I think he did---the Supreme Court stopped us from knowing that. Hell yes Gore went to the courts first---so what? Think maybe he was getting raped and knew it? You mention strictly following the law and no bias. Maybe so. Give this test a try--I have. Go to a sporting event--at any level--kids,high school,pros--doesnt matter. Set silently amongst the fans of the opposing team. See if you agree with them on the calls the official make. You wont have to ask them--you'll know their opinion. I'll bet your opinion will be 180 out from the crowd. Do that then tell me you don't have bias. I do stick by my first statement that you were for Bush---you didnt confirm nor deny that directly.

[wills]

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/792/billtext/SB00007F.HTM

[grumble]

Wills, you da man.

I wish you'd post your thoughts along with the URLs you provide us with.

Looks to me as if TX has thought the issue through. Until something else comes up!

I heard a news report to the effect that Justice Souter is at his home during the SCOTUS recess. I sure hope he's filing motion after motion to keep his family abode!

[MOA Shooter]

Maybe it will change when we have 90% voter turnout, an informed electorate, and pigs learn to fly.

Agreed. The pigs will fly first.

But why not make it interastin' and give those aholes some hell?? What's the harm? Someone, then some more, then more let start asking the hard Q's when the ahole opens his mouth and promises something. It would be a start. Definitely a long battle... all uphill as the vast majority of this "electorate" are relatives of Forrest Gump.

The buffalo herd was doomed after the 'hunters' dropped the lookout animals.

MOA.