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: jttmab who wrote (51496)	7/3/2005 10:08:57 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

I think Wayne and a lot of other conservatives are living in the past. In the past, the Republican party WAS the party of small government, states rights and fiscal responsibility. The Republicans aren't ANY of those thing anymore. It's as if the neocon Republicans took the worst aspects of both parties and made them their policies, while discarding all the good points.

To: jttmab who wrote (51496)	7/3/2005 3:26:50 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"Though the city could not take petitioners' land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, see, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted "to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals," ibid. Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land--at least not in its entirety--to use by the general public, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ... public." Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose. Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power.... Petitioners' proposal that the Court adopt a new bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized.... The Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan...." caselaw.lp.findlaw.com