Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (51444)	7/2/2005 4:37:23 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 173976

Neither he or the SC said anything of the sort. Do you do ANY RESEARCH before you post? Do you know that your Prophet Bush used eminent domain to make his fortune? Didn't think so. "...In affirming that decision, the majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens resolved a question that had surprisingly gone unanswered for all the myriad times that governments have used their power under the Fifth Amendment to ``take'' private property for ``public use.'' The question was the definition of ``public use.'' Stevens wrote that New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment because the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue. Stevens noted that earlier Supreme Court decisions interpreting the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment had allowed the use of eminent domain to redevelop a blighted neighborhood in Washington, D.C., to redistribute land ownership in Hawaii and to assist a gold-mining company, in a decision by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1906. ``Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government,'' Stevens said, adding, ``Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose.'' He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing -- David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit...." mercurynews.com ==== Utah passed a law doing just that as have a handful of other states. So they: 1. Take the capitalist position that economic development is public purpose. 2. Take the conservative position for states rights.

To: Wayners who wrote (51444)	7/2/2005 4:42:08 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

Kennedy is my hero ............................................... Kennedy Slams Unnamed Supreme Court Nominee ScrappleFace ^ \| July 2, 2005 \| Scott Ott (2005-07-02) -- Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA, today criticized President George Bush's as-yet-unnamed replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as a "brutal, Bible-thumping, right-wing ideologue who hates minorities, women and cocker spaniels." "He or she is clearly outside the mainstream of American values," said Sen. Kennedy. "President Bush has again ignored the Senate's 'advice and consent' role, forcing Democrats to filibuster this outrageous nominee." The Massachusetts Senator said his aides have already discovered "reams of memos" showing that the man or woman Mr. Bush will appoint has "a history of abusing subordinates, dodging military service, hiring undocumented workers, spanking his or her children and rolling back the clock on human rights to the days when the Pharaohs ruled Egypt with an iron fist." The Senator's office issued a news release to the media documenting the allegations against the potential high court judge, with a convenient blank line allowing reporters to fill in the nominee's name as soon as that information is leaked.