Freepers Are Urging Assassination of Supreme Court Justices!

[Midwest_Doc]

Read the comments
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1428929/posts

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[American in Asia]

16. Me too...

(shudders at the thought)

I don't like this decision either. Not a bit.

How the freepers get that this is a "liberal" issue, and that we oppose Judge Brown because of her dissent on something similar is beyond me though...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

50. For them, it's not enough that everything liberal be evil...

Everything evil must be liberal too. THAT's the depth of their fanaticism.

[Walt Starr]

2. Although they are wayyyyyy over the top

They are right, the decision stinks and disappoints me greatly.

It's a sad day in America when Clarence Thomas, William Rhenquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Anthony "Big Tony the Hatchet" Scalia get it right and the rest get it wrong.

[Felix Mala]

3. The surprise is that it hasn't been tried long before now.

[tex-wyo-dem]

4. Maybe they are waking up to the fact that...

the neocon agenda is all about money, power and giving the corporate fat cats everything they desire...screw the little people.

Edit: And, yes, they are way over the top as usual.

[Jack The Tab]

21. It wasn't the repukes who voted for this shit..

It was mostly all liberals. I'm with the freepers on this issue. this is COMPLETELY UNAMERICAN bullshit.

[Jack The Tab]

24. This is tyranny, plain and simple.

And it was the liberal justices who voted for this complete horseshit.

I am disgusted with the entire lot of them. However the Conservatives have my congratulations today.

[DistressedAmerican]

25. Sadly they Think It Is Our Fault!

Why liberal judges liked this bill I will never know!

[Jack Rabbit]

57. That's exactly what it is about

Even if it's legal, it's wrong.

[Goldmund]

5. As this poster says...

Even the DUers don't like this. When Freepers and DUers can agree on something, you KNOW there's a problem.

43 posted on 06/23/2005 8:19:41 AM PDT by Quick1

[bemildred]

6. Morons. The courts ruling was utterly predictable.

We live in a tyranny, and anybody who cares a fig about real personal liberty needs to figure out who their real enemies are, and it ain't the "liberals".

[progressivebydesign]

33. Um.. it was the most liberal justices that did this! n/t

[tanyev]

7. Someone in need of a dope slap.

This makes it all the more important that GWB puts his own people on the court!!!!!

HOW will that make it better?

[Moochy]

17. GWB puts his own people on the court

Beacuse everyone knows GWB is a populist, of the people and does hard work for the little guy.

Man where were you when the kool-aid was being handed out?
:)

GWB's judges will be neo-con apparachniks which is a requirement for membership within the conservative judicial movement, that and not a shred of empathy for fellow sentient life.

[helderheid]

8. Excuse me the LIBERAL judges made this law?

I find that hard to swallow!

[Walt Starr]

14. Look at the four Supremos who dissented

Thomas, O'Connor, Rhenquist, and Scalia are the four dissenters.

Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Stevens and Breyer were the ones who said it's okay for rich, faceless, inhuman corporations to seize the homes of actual people, granting more rights to corporations than citizens have.

Right now I'm disgusted with the entire court and don't think any of them deserve the honor of being on the court!

[Moochy]

9. Boofus knows things

For those of you without full-body condoms, who are unable or unwilling to venture into freeperville :

And the gun grabbers say there is no legitimate reason to own a .50BMG rifle. How else will you kill the bastard in the bulldozer about to confiscate and raze your home?


22 posted on 06/23/2005 8:15:16 AM PDT by boofus
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies | Report Abuse >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: kellynla
Chairman Mao's General Store coming to you back door...

What on earth does this decision have to do with the Chinese?

23 posted on 06/23/2005 8:15:24 AM PDT by DSDan
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies | Report Abuse >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: cowboyway
We need more guns.
Some tanks, as well.

We will not let the government take our land to give to another.

I will fight to the death.

Are you with me?

:rofl:

Even the DUers don't like this. When Freepers and DUers can agree on something, you KNOW there's a problem.

Interesting point he has, maybe this is an opening in terms of turning freeper heads to the non-populist elitist bent of the current crop of republicans, including the conservatives on the SC bench. I'm sure not everyone agrees its a bad thing,(recent SC decision) but imminent domain for profit seems pretty heinous. Similar precendent to the rules in NAFTA and the rules being proposed in CAFTA, wherein transnational companies can sue local governments in a world trade court, in order to change compel local govts. to change laws that restrict profits.

To: Mortikhi
Way beyond the pale here. Advocates assassination.

46 posted on 06/23/2005 8:20:31 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies | Report Abuse >

Generically advocates assasination, but wisely avoids making a target list.. you fucking jackass, so macho, your freeptard friends admire your virtual virility.

[in_cog_ni_to]

42. Uh, has anyone reported this to the Secret Service???

I don't care if they agree with us on this issue. If WE ever threatened an assassination of ANYONE, the freepers would have the SS on our doorstep ASAP. REPORT THIS!

[Moochy]

45. Secret Service? FBI?

Remember when the judges were up at capitol hill asking for more funding for security? When Cornryn was all but calling for the insane fundies to rise up and take justice into their hands.

I think I remember that Secret Service was not invloved in SC security. But, yeah the call for assasination is definitely reportable, to some authority, though I know not who might have jurisdiction.

Here's the contact info for FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm

[RandomKoolzip]

10. Jesus.

While I don't advocate killing ANYBODY (except maybe Ryan Cabrerra), I think this is the worst decision to come down the Supreme pike since the 19th century. What utter bullshit!

I cannot believe I am agreeing with Scalia on this one. This is too much to bear! :cry:

[tex-wyo-dem]

11. Does anyone know which justices ruled which way?

n/t

[helderheid]

12. that's my question

[RandomKoolzip]

13. It's in the article.

Believe it or not, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor voted AGAINST government seizure of homes and private land, while the more "moderate" judges voted FOR this insane piece of legislation.

[Generic Guy]

19. This doesn't smell right.

The neocons voted against this? No folks what we have here is a plot by rove and company. Somehow they got to the moderates on the SC and got them to vote for this meanwhile, they told the conservatives to vote against it. This way they got it passed like they wanted and, now they get to claim that it's the right wing judges who tried to stop it. That way they can point to this next time bush tries to appoint a nutjob righty to the court. We are being played again.

[RandomKoolzip]

20. I don't think it was a plot.

I think they all knew what they were doing.

Right now I'm ready to guzzle some Old Style and piss all over 'em. Every single one of them. Fuckers.

[Generic Guy]

23. Think now.

Why would the conservative judges be on the right (correct) side? Something is fishy here. Mark my words the freepers will be using this as proof that we need conservative judges.

[RandomKoolzip]

27. They already ARE saying that.

In the FR link. But they'd be saying that anyways; they're freepers!

Believe me when I tell you that if Scalia, Thomas, et al. had been the ones voting FOR govt. seizure of private property, the freepers would be defending that decision in the name of "homeland security," or, my favorite, "growth."

There's no plot behind this, just poor jurisprudence.

[paula777]

28. Shit, maybe we do. I never would have thought something like this would

happen by so called 'liberal judges' Seriously, I am sickened by this and for the moment wish there was one more conservative judge on board so this sort of thing would have been voted down.

[Generic Guy]

31. With bush in charge

I am surprised this didn't happen sooner. Like I said the cons now have an issue they can manipulate people with.

[paula777]

36. Yes they do - and they arguement will appeal to the left as well

This is one giant fuck up by the liberals. GIANT

[johnaries]

39. What? Is this article from Bizarro world?

I'm totally confused.
edit to add: I don't trust the Freeper post. I think it's time for a little googling...

[Walt Starr]

18. The court conservatives were the DISSENTERS

Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Kennedy were the majority. Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, and Rhenquist were the justices who got it right but were the minority.

[progressivebydesign]

32. Sounds like the stalwart Repub Justices voted against it. n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. Sad thing is, they think this is a liberal idea. They have no clue we are

hating it too!

Editing to say that some of them DO know. How about that?!

[Virginian]

40. It is exaggerating the law to give big business money.

Just my rant and random thoughts on the matter.

Some of these homes and businesses have been in the same family for generations! It does smell like Mugabe the difference being that these people will be paid for their land. (They will won't they?)

This seems like big business getting the homes condemned so that they don't have to pay fair market value. I'm sure for some, no amount of money can compensate them for their homes but for others, if the price is right...

If it were for anything other than a developer who will profit from their evictions -- If it was for a community owned hospital or a library or school, I might understand. But those structures wouldn't need such a prime location to be effective.

It is the loss by the little people and the profit of the corporations that bugs me. It is only secondary that the community may benefit. Eminent domain should consider the community as a whole and not just money or the interests of big business. The people who live there want their houses and the people who live nearby like seeing those houses there. Turn it into an historic preserved area.

[alfredo]

22. Have any of you contacted the SS or the FBI. Those seem like

real threats against judges.

I disagree with the court decision, but I do not advocate violence.

[paula777]

26. I'm not reading what freepers say but if this is about the supreme courts

decision that big businesses can take away peoples homes then I'm with them. I think this is an outrage

[Cats Against Frist]

29. And then the GOP votes, yesterday

to take power away from the state governers to protect their people from environmental disaster (energy bill). Both parties are FUBAR. That's the first time I've ever used the acronym FUBAR.

Local governments should get to decide this issue -- NOT the Supreme Court. It's still too bad for the residents, if city government votes in favor -- but, you know what -- then anti-developer contingents run their own candidates. I'd rather see this legislated locally, than top-down. It would be a good way to get people involved in local politics -- where their heads should be, anyway.

The national political stage should be destroyed. That's part of the problem. In fact, that's a LOT of the problem. Freepers forget there wouldn't be "big government," without big corporations, big defense and the ultra wealthy, which necessitate big government. This bill protects wealth at the expense of freedom -- and both parties participate in it.

[ComerPerro]

30. Fuck it, it doesn't matter anyway

Corporations can pretty much do whatever they want anyway. They already have unlimited power. Now they have precident for doing so. But they could have done it without the decision.


Has anyone seen comments from the judges who ruled in favor? Is there something we are missing here?

[Toots]

34. A real slap to the Liberal cause, ....Tax and Spend Liberals

It is about communities getting a larger tax base so they can better aid the community as a whole. I can understand the logic (I don't agree with it) but I understand it. The betterment of the community has more value than the betterment of the individual. In this case that is not IMHO the correct decision. They are just extending the logic of imminent domain a bit too far for comfort. Wallmart will absolutely love this decision. The worst thing about this is it is final. You have no further appeal than the Extreme Court.

[UdoKier]

35. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

This is one of the most disturbing developments since stolen election 2000 and the Iraq war fraud.

I'm becoming more and more certain that we are correct in leaving this country.

Aren't private property rights supposed to be one of the founding principles of this country? With democracy already long dead, what the hell is left?

[converted_democrat]

37. Sorry posted on the wrong thread!!!!

[johnaries]

38. That's what you get with "Strict Constructionists" who interpret the law

literally word for word. More responsible justices in the past have always considered the "purpose" of the law and whether or not a strictly literal application of the law would suit the pupose intended at the time the law was written.

But those were the "activist" judges.... :eyes:

Never mind - I just found out that the Constructionists voted AGAINST it?!?!?!? What's going on?

[havocmom]

41. Be careful about agreeing with them; Remember ----> Hi Agent Mike!

The junta is itching for a half way legitiment looking reason to sht down the web since they can't control it like they do the Corporate Media.

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. Hi Agent Mike!

:hi: say :hi: to agent Mike everyone! Don't forget he's here! :hi:

[Jack Rabbit]

58. Hi, Mike. Repeal the Patriot Act.

And employ civil disobedience until it is repealed.

[converted_democrat]

43. Violence is never the answer. Ever.

This is an awful decision, though. America has ceased to be America for awhile now. Our country is taking oil from the Iraqi people that does not belong to us, now our country is taking land from us that does not belong to them. It's wrong, but can anyone really say they are surprised? Violence is never the answer. Ever.

Edited for my awful spelling.

[SlipperySlope]

46. I disagree

''"Where the choice is between only violence and cowardice, I would advise violence."'' ~ Mohatma Gandhi

[va_dem]

48. Invaded their country, yes

but in all honesty we are paying for their oil not stealing it. And it's pretty clear that we are going to leave, which alot of us said would never happen. As for violence NEVER being the answer, that approach would still have us as British subjects, or doing nazi salutes to the Fatherland. I think this decision is horrible and I am stunned that our justices would vote for it. I guess the lure of increased tax revenues brings injustice just as the lure of corporate profits does. So much for liberty and freedom.

[AlCzervik]

47. This ruling is bad bad news, Eminent Domain now on steroids.

i don't agree with the killing part abviously but i totally understand thier anger----how scary is that? I actually somewhat agree on something with freepers.

[va_dem]

49. I agree with them also

They are dead on right about this and our side is dead wrong.

[JackDragna]

53. One problem..

..these people are "our side" like pro-war Democrats are on "our side." This is not a liberal position: this is a reactionary position.

I am so utterly digusted.

[RandomKoolzip]

55. "Our side?" Uh...check out the FR thread.

"We" (Conservatives and liberals) agree about this lunkheaded decision. It's the judges, none of whom could be called liberal with a straight face, who are "dead wrong."

"Our side?!"

BTW, "Our side" is not calling for the assassination of Supreme Court Justices. The freepers are. And on that count, they are "dead wrong."

[Parche]

51. blame

And they blame the "Liberals" again

Will they ever learn?

[NJmaverick]

52. Just another batch of right wing christian terrorists

No different the OBL or Hamas. All want to kill for a cause they believe in.

[librechik]

54. Do they still love their Bushie? He was the first to do this, in TX!

they should have known they were voting for a big corporate thief--that's what they like about him! (as long as it's OTHER PEOPLE that Bush destroys.)

Ha hah-- eat it, freeper scumbags!

Live in your SUVs--they're already up on blocks due to fuel costs, no doubt!

[Jack Rabbit]

56. Message to lurking Freepers (a friendly one, actually)

Of course, I'm not going to condone calls for assassination, but let's address the issues here. Like you, I find this decision odious.

The fact that Justices Ginsberg and Breyer voted with the majority in this decision reminds me of why I like to call myself a progressive rather than a liberal.

What you on the right fear is government power. What many on the left fear is corporate power.

It should be obvious that the thing to fear is power. That is what we have in common. We are both right in that respect. Our differences seem only a matter of where we place the emphasis.

To us, socialism is less threatening than corporatism because to place vital industries in the hands of the government means that it is under popular control, at least theoretically. However, you are right to poke a hole in that theory; popular control of the government is too often only theoretical.

I've seen large corporations from the inside. They don't work very well. Like large governments, they are massive bureaucracies that bog themselves down in paper work and red tape. They can't make a business decision quickly to better serve their customers as a result of not being able to make the most mundane decision without going through several layers of management. They really don't care about their employees or their customers. They make money by being massive, not efficient or innovative. Products are to be cost effective, not necessarily good. If somebody builds a better mousetrap, the big guys buy him out and discontinue the product, unless this better mousetrap can be produced cheaper.

We, who buy their products, have nothing to say about this.

Of course, governments are more likely to respond to powerful entities like that than to the citizens they supposededly serve, even in a system of what purports to be free and fair elections. The power of the state will be used to protect the artificial persons, not the real people.

So, the question is, how do we limit power? Not just government power; not just corporate power; but any power.

[va_dem]

59. We keep the power to ourselves somehow.

You make some good points, fuck the corporations, and now fuck the supreme court. What's our constitution worth? Apparently very little to these traitors. So how do we retain the power to the people without the corporations or the SC running the show? Extreme term limits? Get back to the farmer/legislator? Might work