Commies Eat Shit
The lastest SCOTUS opinion Kelo v. New London really hacks me off. I mean, what could be more communist than redistribution of wealth via the confiscation of private property?
I have not read the majority opinion on this one - it pisses me off way too much to give those five socialists even 1 minute of my time. I went straight to the dissent, the first of which was written by Justice O'Connor (whom I usually find insufferably verbose). She gave what some have called a "stinging rebuke" to her colleagues, but I think it is much too mild. I would have started with something like:
What the hell do you think you're doing here? Have you taken the transporter straight to Cuba? Fer cryin' out loud, are you even still on this planet?
This kind of crap has been going on for quite a while. O'Connor uses a precedence that is just as horrible in its consequences:
In Midkiff, we upheld a land condemnation scheme in Hawaii whereby title in real property was taken from lessors and transferred to lessees. At that time, the State and Federal Governments owned nearly 49% of the States land, and another 47% was in the hands of only 72 private landowners. Concentration of land ownership was so dramatic that on the States most urbanized island, Oahu, 22 landowners owned 72.5% of the fee simple titles. Id., at 232. The Hawaii Legislature had concluded that theoligopoly in land ownership was skewing the States residential fee simple market, inflating land prices, and injuring the public tranquility and welfare, and therefore enacted a condemnation scheme for redistributing title.
What the fuck? Ooooo, rich people suck. They should give their property to me. Waaahh! /hate filled lefty off/
I recently spent a day in Belize. I had heard a lot of good things about this small country and was really looking forward to a brief visit. A colleague even asked me to check out property prices. On a tourist excursion, I had a chance to talk to our guide and she told me something that turned my stomach. It seems that every citizen of Belize is entitled to own property. If you can't buy it yourself, the government will give you some. It might be up in the mountains, or far from any city, but you get a plot of land to call your own. Where does the govt. get this land? They take if from someone who isn't using it properly!!!! Sound familiar?
Our founders couldn't possibly have intended to make private property a mere playtoy of government entities. Justice Thomas writes:
Though one component of the protection provided by theTakings Clause is that the government can take private property only if it provides “just compensation” for the taking, the Takings Clause also prohibits the government from taking property except “for public use.” Were it otherwise, the Takings Clause would either be meaningless
or empty. If the Public Use Clause served no function other than to state that the government may take property through its eminent domain power—for public or private uses—then it would be surplusage. See ante, at 3– 4 (O’CONNOR, J., dissenting); see also Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 174 (1803) (“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect”); Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 151 (1926). Alternatively, the Clause could distinguish those takings that require compensation from those that do not. That interpretation, however, “would permit private property to be taken or appropriated for private use without any compensation whatever.” Cole v. La Grange, 113 U. S. 1, 8 (1885) (interpreting same language in the Missouri Public Use Clause). In other words, the Clause would require the government to compensate for takings done “for public use,” leaving it free to take property for purely private uses without the payment of compensation.
See where this lame-brained shit is going? What I would like to do is find out where the Commie 5 live and then demand that their property be condemed and turned over to Walmart.
I have not read the majority opinion on this one - it pisses me off way too much to give those five socialists even 1 minute of my time. I went straight to the dissent, the first of which was written by Justice O'Connor (whom I usually find insufferably verbose). She gave what some have called a "stinging rebuke" to her colleagues, but I think it is much too mild. I would have started with something like:
What the hell do you think you're doing here? Have you taken the transporter straight to Cuba? Fer cryin' out loud, are you even still on this planet?
This kind of crap has been going on for quite a while. O'Connor uses a precedence that is just as horrible in its consequences:
In Midkiff, we upheld a land condemnation scheme in Hawaii whereby title in real property was taken from lessors and transferred to lessees. At that time, the State and Federal Governments owned nearly 49% of the States land, and another 47% was in the hands of only 72 private landowners. Concentration of land ownership was so dramatic that on the States most urbanized island, Oahu, 22 landowners owned 72.5% of the fee simple titles. Id., at 232. The Hawaii Legislature had concluded that theoligopoly in land ownership was skewing the States residential fee simple market, inflating land prices, and injuring the public tranquility and welfare, and therefore enacted a condemnation scheme for redistributing title.
What the fuck? Ooooo, rich people suck. They should give their property to me. Waaahh! /hate filled lefty off/
I recently spent a day in Belize. I had heard a lot of good things about this small country and was really looking forward to a brief visit. A colleague even asked me to check out property prices. On a tourist excursion, I had a chance to talk to our guide and she told me something that turned my stomach. It seems that every citizen of Belize is entitled to own property. If you can't buy it yourself, the government will give you some. It might be up in the mountains, or far from any city, but you get a plot of land to call your own. Where does the govt. get this land? They take if from someone who isn't using it properly!!!! Sound familiar?
Our founders couldn't possibly have intended to make private property a mere playtoy of government entities. Justice Thomas writes:
Though one component of the protection provided by theTakings Clause is that the government can take private property only if it provides “just compensation” for the taking, the Takings Clause also prohibits the government from taking property except “for public use.” Were it otherwise, the Takings Clause would either be meaningless
or empty. If the Public Use Clause served no function other than to state that the government may take property through its eminent domain power—for public or private uses—then it would be surplusage. See ante, at 3– 4 (O’CONNOR, J., dissenting); see also Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 174 (1803) (“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect”); Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 151 (1926). Alternatively, the Clause could distinguish those takings that require compensation from those that do not. That interpretation, however, “would permit private property to be taken or appropriated for private use without any compensation whatever.” Cole v. La Grange, 113 U. S. 1, 8 (1885) (interpreting same language in the Missouri Public Use Clause). In other words, the Clause would require the government to compensate for takings done “for public use,” leaving it free to take property for purely private uses without the payment of compensation.
See where this lame-brained shit is going? What I would like to do is find out where the Commie 5 live and then demand that their property be condemed and turned over to Walmart.
posted by GunnNutt at 10:15 PM
<< Home