Here is the vote count of yesterdays "take our property" vote and which president nominated them
1 Stephen G Breyer, Yes, Clinton
2 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Yes, Clinton
3 Anthony Kennedy, Yes, Regan
4 Sandra Day O’Conner, NO, Regan
5 William Rehnquist, NO, Nixon
6 Antonia Scalia, No Regan
7 David H. Souter. No Bush1
8 John Paul Stevens Yes, Ford
9 Clarence Thomas, No Bush1
All dems voted YES
all NOs were cast by REP
john paul stevens was a ford appointment who was a lame duck president , because of Nixon and most likely a compromise vote
David Souter definitely a compromise vote. Robert
Bork was the initial nominee, but because he did not favor abortion totally ripped to shreds. Bush I and the republicans have been kicking themselves ever since his nomination. He is considered the Judas or the Benedict Arnold of the Republican nominees.
This idea that the republicans are the one taking our Freedoms away is nonsense. Most of the Emianate Domain cases are being done in heavily Democratic areas,, by democrates ST Louis, New England, New York city council, cities and states run my Dems. Dems are reinterpeting the constution in order to justify stealing. the law has always been about using property to for public good, ie roads, schools, courts, ect. it was never ment to take property from one private citizen and give it to another private citizen to use. I live in lincoln Ne, and they are doing it here. It is forcing small business out and that is not a Rebublican thing that is a Democrat thing.
This is not a matter of who is on the court and what would have been if a different justice were there. There shouldn't be partisan judges to begin with so good for Souter for going against type. It's about perspective. Look at what is happening in this country......
-private property can be taken from owners at a city's whim
-the world absolutely hates us
-the military knows the GPAs and locations of 16 year olds based on their spending habits
-and OH BY THE WAY, about 1800 americans are dead in a unjust war.
It is ironic that this might have all turned out differently if those same justices who were protecting the rights of private property owners had not basically appointed Bush to office in the Fall of 2000.
On a somewhat related note, while SCOTUS leaves a lot to be desired in terms of refining laws, they don't hold a candle to the incompetents of the US House of Representatives, which voted the other day in favor of a law against burning the American flag. Good thing most American flag burning is being done in countries that hate us! And good thing they are spending so much time trying to get our soldiers home!
"It is ironic that this might have all turned out differently if those same justices who were protecting the rights of private property owners had not basically appointed Bush to office in the Fall of 2000"
I wouldn't draw parallels between this issue and the others WonderK raises. You can be of different opinions on this issue than on the war. I think that conservative (strict constructionist) justices would be more inclined to respect the framers' intent with respect to property rights than would the those justices appointed in the shadow of the Warren Court. Hence Scalia and Souter would be more inclined to oppose property seizures than, say, Ginsberg.
Well, look on the bright side (I'm in a cynical mood today).. the more property is condemned the more commissions there will be for designers, and the wealthy beneficiaries of these seizures would be more inclined toward professionally-designed buildings than would the private homeowners and mom-and-pop shop-people who are likely to be evicted. This ruling is "good" news for us. Let them eat cake ;-p
Oh, by the way, it begins... Florida loses no time to condemn property...
This from USToday today:
-------------------------------------------------
In Hollywood, Fla., city officials said the court's ruling may tilt the balance in a dispute over the city's plan to use eminent domain to renovate a historic hotel and build condos next to it.
"We will almost certainly now be successful in our eminent domain action," City Attorney Dan Abbott said. This week, the local redevelopment agency authorized the government's seizure of a two-story commercial building next to the Great Southern Hotel. The agency wants the land as part of the development project, but the property's owners have objected.
Andrew Prince Brigham, a lawyer who represents property owners along Florida's coast, said several governments in that state want to seize oceanfront land bought long ago by residents in order to build luxury resorts.
ya...this is the best thing to happen to architects and builders we can begin the constant revolving door of condemn, evict, clear, and build, this cycle should begin again about every 5 yrs. fulfilling comrad koolhaas's theory of "junk space"
"how i stoped hating architecture and learned to love the govt."
The Democratic Lie. that is not even credible, espically since every Democratic news out let and newspaper was following the election. Usa today, not a conservative paper, wrote a story about the election and the recount. There were 3 recounts and ALL 3 had Bush winning and Gore loosing. The Washing Post, not a conservite pater, ran the same Story. The Courts had nothing to do with it. They sent it back down to the state Courts and said decide for yourself. its your problem. That is fact what you say is fiction.
AS to the courts. Yes it does matter who is on the courts. what they belive about the role of courts in a democracy is important. Yestardays ruling show how bad the decision making of the court is. not becouse of the conservatives, but because of the Liberals. The Liberals want to make the court a law making body instead of an enforcment body. Esentally the Courts become a King that takes a way the right of the citizens. In a democracy our Representatives, Who WE ELECT, write the laws, the Courts are essentaly Referees. That is how it is suppose to work.
All the conservatives understand this, most liberals don't. The court is not a law making body. It is our referee.
Well, as I understand it, people like OMA, UN Studio etc are already building for disposability and 5-10 yr obsolescence cycles, using innovative forms combined with dirt-cheap materials and construction methods. I think we all have a bright future ahead....
The 'Compulsory Purchase' of property is a positive contribution in regenerating existing built land more in a more susstainable and efficient way. The development by Commercial influence is an abuse that often contributes in a framentation of communities and the urban realm.
Or, for those that don't have a subscription, first paragraph:
"In Battle to Pick Next Justice, Right Says, Avoid a Kennedy"
By JASON DePARLE
Published: June 27, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 26 - When Anthony M. Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, he took the place of a fallen conservative icon, Robert H. Bork, whose defeat in a Senate conflagration still shapes judicial politics. Sunny while Mr. Bork emanated gloom, clean-shaven while Mr. Bork was bearded, Justice Kennedy was above all philosophically undefined while Mr. Bork's conservatism was chiseled.
.....So I guess everything that was said about Souter was wrong? My point being, again, it's not about names. We need Supreme Court Justices who uphold the constitution, plain and simple. Which is to say it's not about "right" or "left", rather what is right and just. Is there even anyone left in the country who could be considered moderate and defy expectations in the highest court in the land?
i can't wait for those of you who think the eminent domain ruling is a good thing to have your property taken from you.
of course the odds are that you are the same people who support the so-called iraq war - as long as someone else is doing the dying.
Isn't using a thread about eminent domain to bring up anti-war opinions somewhat tacky. Kind of like calling republicans nazis... Obviously pro-war people must be stupid...how could they be anything else..geez grow up.
architecturegeek...
my point was that it's all well and good to say things like "...in theory, i fully agree with the decision." or "...we have to see this as an oppurtunity." but when it happens to them, or their grandmother, i'm sure they would be singing a different tune. and it's the same for people who say similar things about iraq. but you don't see those people enlisting. the bottom line is that a lot of people have strong opinions but don't have the cajones to back 'em up when the rubber hits the road.
but from a historic perspective I would agree:
The first things that start to errode on the way into an illiberal society are the personal rights. Especially the rights of people on the edge of society.
(I've been harshly attacked for simmilar posts, comparing 1920 Germany AND Europe and Neo-Con-US today, so I KNOW there ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENCES!)
Looks like a group of people are taking the Supreme Court head on by using their recent ruling to try taking over land owned by Justice Souter in order to build a hotel. The hotel would provide greater tax revenue than it currently does. The hotel would be named "Lost Liberty Hotel." Didn't John Lennon sing a song about this?
ANOTHER REASON TO ADD TO THE 'WHY AMERICA SUCKS' LIST
Here is the vote count of yesterdays "take our property" vote and which president nominated them
1 Stephen G Breyer, Yes, Clinton
2 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Yes, Clinton
3 Anthony Kennedy, Yes, Regan
4 Sandra Day O’Conner, NO, Regan
5 William Rehnquist, NO, Nixon
6 Antonia Scalia, No Regan
7 David H. Souter. No Bush1
8 John Paul Stevens Yes, Ford
9 Clarence Thomas, No Bush1
All dems voted YES
all NOs were cast by REP
john paul stevens was a ford appointment who was a lame duck president , because of Nixon and most likely a compromise vote
David Souter definitely a compromise vote. Robert
Bork was the initial nominee, but because he did not favor abortion totally ripped to shreds. Bush I and the republicans have been kicking themselves ever since his nomination. He is considered the Judas or the Benedict Arnold of the Republican nominees.
This idea that the republicans are the one taking our Freedoms away is nonsense. Most of the Emianate Domain cases are being done in heavily Democratic areas,, by democrates ST Louis, New England, New York city council, cities and states run my Dems. Dems are reinterpeting the constution in order to justify stealing. the law has always been about using property to for public good, ie roads, schools, courts, ect. it was never ment to take property from one private citizen and give it to another private citizen to use. I live in lincoln Ne, and they are doing it here. It is forcing small business out and that is not a Rebublican thing that is a Democrat thing.
yesterdays vote was 5-4 split it would have been different if Bork instead of souter were on the court. i would have been 5-4 against.
Oh by the way Bork is a Rebublican
This is not a matter of who is on the court and what would have been if a different justice were there. There shouldn't be partisan judges to begin with so good for Souter for going against type. It's about perspective. Look at what is happening in this country......
-private property can be taken from owners at a city's whim
-the world absolutely hates us
-the military knows the GPAs and locations of 16 year olds based on their spending habits
-and OH BY THE WAY, about 1800 americans are dead in a unjust war.
It is ironic that this might have all turned out differently if those same justices who were protecting the rights of private property owners had not basically appointed Bush to office in the Fall of 2000.
On a somewhat related note, while SCOTUS leaves a lot to be desired in terms of refining laws, they don't hold a candle to the incompetents of the US House of Representatives, which voted the other day in favor of a law against burning the American flag. Good thing most American flag burning is being done in countries that hate us! And good thing they are spending so much time trying to get our soldiers home!
"It is ironic that this might have all turned out differently if those same justices who were protecting the rights of private property owners had not basically appointed Bush to office in the Fall of 2000"
HMMMM...care to elaborate i don't quit follow????
Wasn't this a Meatballs movie?
I wouldn't draw parallels between this issue and the others WonderK raises. You can be of different opinions on this issue than on the war. I think that conservative (strict constructionist) justices would be more inclined to respect the framers' intent with respect to property rights than would the those justices appointed in the shadow of the Warren Court. Hence Scalia and Souter would be more inclined to oppose property seizures than, say, Ginsberg.
Well, look on the bright side (I'm in a cynical mood today).. the more property is condemned the more commissions there will be for designers, and the wealthy beneficiaries of these seizures would be more inclined toward professionally-designed buildings than would the private homeowners and mom-and-pop shop-people who are likely to be evicted. This ruling is "good" news for us. Let them eat cake ;-p
Oh, by the way, it begins... Florida loses no time to condemn property...
This from USToday today:
-------------------------------------------------
In Hollywood, Fla., city officials said the court's ruling may tilt the balance in a dispute over the city's plan to use eminent domain to renovate a historic hotel and build condos next to it.
"We will almost certainly now be successful in our eminent domain action," City Attorney Dan Abbott said. This week, the local redevelopment agency authorized the government's seizure of a two-story commercial building next to the Great Southern Hotel. The agency wants the land as part of the development project, but the property's owners have objected.
Andrew Prince Brigham, a lawyer who represents property owners along Florida's coast, said several governments in that state want to seize oceanfront land bought long ago by residents in order to build luxury resorts.
ya...this is the best thing to happen to architects and builders we can begin the constant revolving door of condemn, evict, clear, and build, this cycle should begin again about every 5 yrs. fulfilling comrad koolhaas's theory of "junk space"
"how i stoped hating architecture and learned to love the govt."
The Democratic Lie. that is not even credible, espically since every Democratic news out let and newspaper was following the election. Usa today, not a conservative paper, wrote a story about the election and the recount. There were 3 recounts and ALL 3 had Bush winning and Gore loosing. The Washing Post, not a conservite pater, ran the same Story. The Courts had nothing to do with it. They sent it back down to the state Courts and said decide for yourself. its your problem. That is fact what you say is fiction.
AS to the courts. Yes it does matter who is on the courts. what they belive about the role of courts in a democracy is important. Yestardays ruling show how bad the decision making of the court is. not becouse of the conservatives, but because of the Liberals. The Liberals want to make the court a law making body instead of an enforcment body. Esentally the Courts become a King that takes a way the right of the citizens. In a democracy our Representatives, Who WE ELECT, write the laws, the Courts are essentaly Referees. That is how it is suppose to work.
All the conservatives understand this, most liberals don't. The court is not a law making body. It is our referee.
Caleb
Well, as I understand it, people like OMA, UN Studio etc are already building for disposability and 5-10 yr obsolescence cycles, using innovative forms combined with dirt-cheap materials and construction methods. I think we all have a bright future ahead....
The 'Compulsory Purchase' of property is a positive contribution in regenerating existing built land more in a more susstainable and efficient way. The development by Commercial influence is an abuse that often contributes in a framentation of communities and the urban realm.
bots
someone who under stands. wow
Incidentally:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/politics/27kennedy.html
Or, for those that don't have a subscription, first paragraph:
"In Battle to Pick Next Justice, Right Says, Avoid a Kennedy"
By JASON DePARLE
Published: June 27, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 26 - When Anthony M. Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, he took the place of a fallen conservative icon, Robert H. Bork, whose defeat in a Senate conflagration still shapes judicial politics. Sunny while Mr. Bork emanated gloom, clean-shaven while Mr. Bork was bearded, Justice Kennedy was above all philosophically undefined while Mr. Bork's conservatism was chiseled.
.....So I guess everything that was said about Souter was wrong? My point being, again, it's not about names. We need Supreme Court Justices who uphold the constitution, plain and simple. Which is to say it's not about "right" or "left", rather what is right and just. Is there even anyone left in the country who could be considered moderate and defy expectations in the highest court in the land?
Don't ask me, I sure don't know.
i can't wait for those of you who think the eminent domain ruling is a good thing to have your property taken from you.
of course the odds are that you are the same people who support the so-called iraq war - as long as someone else is doing the dying.
Isn't using a thread about eminent domain to bring up anti-war opinions somewhat tacky. Kind of like calling republicans nazis... Obviously pro-war people must be stupid...how could they be anything else..geez grow up.
more liberal = more trust in government to decide what's best for you
less liberal = more belief in absolute rights, such as property rights
Eviction is just the first step in a long drawn out process toward Final Solution - - - don't let it bother you.
touche
private property created crime.
architecturegeek...
my point was that it's all well and good to say things like "...in theory, i fully agree with the decision." or "...we have to see this as an oppurtunity." but when it happens to them, or their grandmother, i'm sure they would be singing a different tune. and it's the same for people who say similar things about iraq. but you don't see those people enlisting. the bottom line is that a lot of people have strong opinions but don't have the cajones to back 'em up when the rubber hits the road.
since when did property rights become entwined with enlisting and war opinions. This is bollox. Stick to the topic.
strong words Dazed an Confused....
but from a historic perspective I would agree:
The first things that start to errode on the way into an illiberal society are the personal rights. Especially the rights of people on the edge of society.
(I've been harshly attacked for simmilar posts, comparing 1920 Germany AND Europe and Neo-Con-US today, so I KNOW there ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENCES!)
Looks like a group of people are taking the Supreme Court head on by using their recent ruling to try taking over land owned by Justice Souter in order to build a hotel. The hotel would provide greater tax revenue than it currently does. The hotel would be named "Lost Liberty Hotel." Didn't John Lennon sing a song about this?
Let's hope they don't "learn from their trip to the wood shed"
funny that the news story describes the 'winning' group of justices as anti judicial activist. :-)
a common conclusion. but it will be "too early" for only a few more generations.
just one example of perennial political moves. they were pandering to the late-70's new and rising libertarianism.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.