Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Eminent Domain Ruling To Zap Justice Souter?  
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6661 posts, RR: 35
Posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1025 times:

Like they say, turnaround is fair play. You HAVE to love this shit. Justice Souter may have to gear up for a personal legal battle. This is not a joke.

http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Brief excerpt:
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1021 times:

If he ( Logan Darrow Clements) has the cash to back it up, I say he should!!!

[Edited 2005-06-28 19:59:28]

User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3288 posts, RR: 31
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1007 times:

I would GLADLY donate a Jackson to that construction fund...


"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6661 posts, RR: 35
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1005 times:

Wonder if Justices Ruth Badgirl Ginsburg, Kennedy, Stevens, and Breyer have any property.

I'm thinking about going into the commercial real estate development business.  Smile


User currently offlineWellHung From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1004 times:

How mature.

User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6661 posts, RR: 35
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 991 times:

Quoting WellHung (Reply 4):
How mature.

If you want to win the game, you gotta know the rules.

If SCOTUS wants to change the rules which are a blatant violation of the Constitution, then they should fully be on the receiving end of what they've wrought.


User currently offlineWellHung From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 989 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 5):
If SCOTUS wants to change the rules which are a blatant violation of the Constitution,

So you are more knowledgable about the constitution than 5 Supreme Court justices? Spare me.


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6661 posts, RR: 35
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 986 times:

Quoting WellHung (Reply 6):
So you are more knowledgable about the constitution than 5 Supreme Court justices? Spare me.

In this instance, I would say anyone that values freedom, liberty and property rights (one of the sacred planks of our entire Republic) would know more than the do-gooding gutless wonders that are on the bench and ruled for New London VS Kelo.

Spare me your pithy little remarks. I don't recall you sparking any brain cells together when we were actually discussing the ruling last week.


User currently offlineWellHung From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 983 times:

I notice how you retreated from the mention of the Constitution in your last post. Make a list of 'rights' you feel this ruling violates, then burn it. Pick up a copy of the Constitution and spare me your whining.

User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6661 posts, RR: 35
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 979 times:

BWAHAHAAA!!

You're a riot UnHung.

With any luck, we can only hope some corporate concern will take a shine to your property (if you own any), and then you can come running and crying back here. Go read the thread from last week and then come talk to me junior.


User currently offlineWellHung From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 977 times:

Read what thread? Like I care what a bunch of pimply airline nerds think about a Supreme Court decision. I'll take my chances with the actual majority opinion and dissents.

User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6661 posts, RR: 35
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 971 times:

Quoting WellHung (Reply 10):
I'll take my chances with the actual majority opinion and dissents.

In that case, we broke down much of the opinion itself as well as the outstanding dissenting opinions by Justices O'Connor and Thomas, the latter being remarkably on target.

I'd certainly entertain a discussion about it on the merits and at your convenience.  Smile


User currently offlineWellHung From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 969 times:

I repeat...

Quoting WellHung (Reply 10):
Like I care what a bunch of pimply airline nerds think about a Supreme Court decision.


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6661 posts, RR: 35
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 966 times:

Vapid bullshit again...

*yawn*


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16934 posts, RR: 48
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 964 times:

Quoting WellHung (Reply 10):
Like I care what a bunch of pimply airline nerds think about a Supreme Court decision

Doesn't that include yourself?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineWellHung From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 956 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 13):
Vapid bullshit again...

Exactly. That's why I don't care...

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 14):
Doesn't that include yourself?

No, because I'm not discussing it.


User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3288 posts, RR: 31
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 949 times:

Quoting WellHung (Reply 8):
I notice how you retreated from the mention of the Constitution in your last post. Make a list of 'rights' you feel this ruling violates, then burn it. Pick up a copy of the Constitution and spare me your whining.

WellHung, I know if I told you to take your own advice, you wouldn't listen, so I'll do you a favor and show you the very last line in the Fifth Amendment:

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings.

...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


I'm no brain surgeon, but I do believe it says "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation", not "nor shall private property be taken for private use without just compensation".

Next...



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineWellHung From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 944 times:

Shit, it doesn't get any more public than a hotel. It is being built to be used by the public.

User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16934 posts, RR: 48
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 931 times:

Quoting WellHung (Reply 15):
No, because I'm not discussing it.

You're just responsible for 40% of the posts in this thread...  Yeah sure



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineWellHung From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 927 times:

So you get shot down and come back with THAT?

Dynamite math skills. Chicks dig guys with skills. Unfortunately, your reading comprehension skills are not up to par. Flip to whatever thread Slider is talking about and see if you can find my name anywhere.


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 907 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 13):
Vapid bullshit again...

*yawn*

The only bullshit here is your own.

This decision won't affect Justice Souter's property, nor will it affect your own. I doubt if Justice Souter resides in an economically decimated neighborhood slated for improvement by the City Council or State government. You and Mr Clements and the source of this stupid piece of information display a profound lack of understanding of the rather limited scope of the Supreme Court decision.

Quoting Slider (Reply 11):
I'd certainly entertain a discussion about it on the merits and at your convenience.

You've shown your inability to do so in a previous thread. Reserve whatever limited firepower you posess to address stuff you know about.


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6661 posts, RR: 35
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 902 times:

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 20):
This decision won't affect Justice Souter's property, nor will it affect your own.

Based on the merits of the decision, I would beg to differ. And so would the good people of New London and elsewhere who are going to be impacted.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 20):
You've shown your inability to do so in a previous thread.

Just because you lack the inability to grasp the logic and macro Constituional concepts behind this is not my concern.

You arbitrarily smear the decision's impact by calling everyone who disagrees with you an intellectual lightweight. Last I checked, you never responded to my last post from that thread.

I want you to tell me Jaysit, once and for all, exactly why the majority of citizens in this country who disagree with this decision are wrong.


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16934 posts, RR: 48
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 902 times:

Quoting WellHung (Reply 19):
So you get shot down and come back with THAT?

Nobody was shot down.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 19):
Chicks dig guys with skills

Super.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 19):
Flip to whatever thread Slider is talking about and see if you can find my name anywhere

*Is THIS thread about the SCOTUS?  checkmark 
*Did you say you don't care what 'pimply airliners.net nerds' say about the SCOTUS?  checkmark 
*Does THIS thread include 'pimply airliners.net nerds' talking about the SCOTUS?  checkmark 
*Are you responsible for almost half of the content of this thread?  checkmark 

So for someone who doesn't care about what airliners.net people think about the SCOTUS, you've either implicated yourself as a hypocrite, a pimply face airliners.net nerd, or both...

Do you need me to draw a Venn Diagram?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 895 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 21):
Last I checked, you never responded to my last post from that thread.

I replied to all your posts and answered all your questions. You continued to arbitrarily quote passages from the opinion with a scant understanding of them. It was quite obvious you failed to grasp the limited scope of this opinioin spite of its very narrow ruling. I'm not hanging on here 24-7 to respond to the your repeated statements when its quite obvious that you want to believe your own version of reality.

Quoting Slider (Reply 21):
I want you to tell me Jaysit, once and for all, exactly why the majority of citizens in this country who disagree with this decision are wrong.

They are wrong in believing that this decision has a far greater impact than it actually does. The popular press presented this decision in such a way that most people believed that the government could suddenly take away their property for no reason whatsoever. Most people have no idea that eminent domain has existed since the Bill of Rights, that their lives have been impacted by it for over a century (since eminent domain began to be exercised with the expansion of the country, and that eminent domain even after this decision is still limited in scope. I seriously doubt if our blissfully ignorant populace have fully read and grasped this opinion.

Quoting Slider (Reply 21):
Just because you lack the inability to grasp the logic and macro Constituional concepts behind this is not my concern.

Macro-Constitutional concerns? LOL. Hon, you're really confused.


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6661 posts, RR: 35
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 864 times:

Your pretentious attitude doesn't take away from the merits of the decision.

The fact is that property can now be seized under the expanded scope of eminent domain laws for private purposes that allegedly have a public use.

And the kicker is that there is no litmus test for what constitutes public use.

You can spin it all you want, but you're the one who's in the minority defending an indefensible position. Enjoy your blissful ignorance.


25 Post contains images WellHung : *Is THIS thread about the SCOTUS? It is about Justice Souter's property and the decision that might affect it. *Did you say you don't care what 'pimpl
26 MaverickM11 : ??? Never said you were discussing it. Just pointing out the fact that you're a bit of a hypocrite. 'Fraid that still includes you. Vanessa L. Willia
27 Dvk : As I understand it, this ruling is not a complete departure from precedent. Eminent domain was used to take private property for railroad development
28 Post contains images WellHung : I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I do know 'hypocrite' is the wrong term. Stick to math. You obvously don't have proper command of Engli
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Harriett Miers Tipped To Replace Justice O'Connor posted Mon Oct 3 2005 13:09:54 by AeroWesty
Eminent Domain Strikes OH, Pits Land Owner Vs Corp posted Thu Jun 30 2005 04:25:37 by Luv2fly
Cheapest Place To Buy A Domain Name? posted Wed Mar 15 2006 22:36:35 by RootsAir
Who Will Be The Next Scotus Justice To Step Down? posted Tue Jan 31 2006 23:02:42 by StevenUhl777
Best Place To Register New Domain? posted Tue Jan 31 2006 18:53:14 by Kay
Congress To Subvert Supreme Court Ruling - Schiavo posted Fri Mar 18 2005 18:52:50 by Gigneil
The Egyptian Court Is To Bring 23 Gays To Justice posted Thu Feb 7 2002 13:39:54 by Ts-ior
A Big Thank You To KevinL1011 posted Sat Dec 9 2006 22:50:08 by Cosec59
How To Install A IP-Adress? posted Sat Dec 9 2006 20:54:01 by Avianca
Would You Want To Rub A Pug? posted Sat Dec 9 2006 09:40:33 by IAH777