The thoughts that were thunk and the goings on of my life.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

What Were They Thinking!?!

Frankly I'm appalled. I can't believe that our courts would actually say that individuals should be allowed to have their property seized because another wealthier individual wants that property. This is probably the worst thing I've seen our judicial branch approve in a long time. It spells all sorts of bad news for anybody that once lived happily in a neighborhood, took care of their land, paid their taxes, and then had somebody decide that they wanted the land more.

Just look at buildings like the Citicorp Building in New York. It's beautiful because they had to work around individuals like that. Or check out this little place in Athens. I can't believe our courts made this decision.

Honestly what surprised me is that all of the conservatives were the ones opposed to it. It just seems that lately conservatives have been too much in the hands of big businesses (liberals are puppets too). It's the first really good thing I've seen a conservative do in a while.

This decision takes a step in a VERY bad direction, one in which the rights of individuals are trampled upon for no reason.

News stories to stay tuned to: The house is passed a legislation to ban the burning the US flag (story). If something like that passes then it's the devil's foot in the door for banning all sorts of other freedoms of speech. I really worry that Americans are so dumb that they want to be explicitly told what all they can and can't do...dangerous!


Andrea said...

Wow. I can't believe this decision was made. Stuff like this almost makes me want to go to law school again.

And this quote:

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

I wonder if he would feel that way if it was his house being razed. Political ass. Oh. Woops. Did that come out?

And what about the appreciable benefits to the people that ALREADY LIVE THERE!? What does this plan give them?

Michael Ward said...

Of course most conservatives would be opposed to this ruling. It's about private property rights--the fundamental basis of free markets economics. If a city can raze your house to build a new mall, what rights to your own property do you really have?

This issue is intimately tied to popular actions of cities (like, say, Arlington, Texas) offering to help support private businesses (like, say, the Dallas Cowboys) in the form of millions of dollars just so they locate a stadium within the city limits. And then where do you build such a stadium? On top of peoples' homes...ah, there's the rub.

Anonymous said...

a few days ago i was thinking about becoming a vigalante against spammers, but now i think i'm going to become a vigalante against anyone that thinks you can take someone's property whenever you feel like it. costume ideas?

Michael Ward said...

There are some more crazy rulings that were released today.

Anonymous said...

I was disappointed with that result also.

And I was upset by the cable ruling-- siding with the FCC saying that the cable providers are only providing information services and not a telecommunications service... Meanwhile the cable companies are offering digital telephony.

I will welcome the time that more of the EM spectrum is made public so that competitive broadband over air can become a viable option.

Anonymous said...

Oh, this ruling pissed me off too. I couldn't believe they actually made that decision. I loved Sandra Day's dissent that was quoted in the NY Times.

Andrea P.