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: Rarebird who wrote (51501)	7/3/2005 2:41:52 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 173976

As I understand it, this is what the SC decision did: 1. Refuse to restrict the idea of 'public good' to things owned by the public like roads and bridges. Public good also includes economic growth. 2. It also said that legislatures, like those in states, can restrict the reach of eminent domain in these cases. ========= I don't like the idea of a local government, corrupt or misguided or just annoying, taking my private property to build an office park. I also don't like the idea of any government taking my tax money (which used to be my property) and using it to go to war. What's odd about the reaction to this decision is: It really looks like a conservative decision based on capitalism as a 'public good' and states rights as a limiting factor. Bush made his fortune using eminent domain for the stadium. How in the world is that different from a corporation putting up a hotel on condemned land which is what the New London, CT case is based on? I'm not saying that this the New London government has it right or wrong, I'm asking why conservatives howl about this decision when their guy BUSH benefited hugely from something quite similar.