"Angry Americans Want to Take Souter's Land"

[GreenPartyVoter]

WEARE, N.H. (AP) - Near the foot of an unmarked, dead-end dirt road sits a humble, mud-colored farmhouse. A sign on a mailbox jutting from a tilted post spells "SOUTER."

Some folks want to make that "Hotel Souter."

People from across the country are getting behind a campaign to seize Supreme Court Justice David Souter's farmhouse to build a luxury hotel, according to the man who came up with the idea following a Supreme Court decision favoring government seizure of private property.

"We would act just as these cities have been acting in seizing properties. We would give Souter the same sort of deal," said Logan Darrow Clements, of Los Angeles.

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20050724/D8BHU6PO0.html

[mtnester]

1. Oh that would be poetic justice

no pun intended

[NorCalDem]

2. I hope they succeed

although I know they won't. It would be hilarious though...

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[babylonsister]

3. How rich! nt

[tubbacheez]

4. Good. Win or lose, these people will generate real discussion on this.

Vaguely written laws and weakly reasoned decisions are very dangerous to society, since they can be abused so easily... no matter how good the original intent.


If there are some solid reasons to allow certain expansions of eminent domain, then let those particular expansions and their respective reasons be thoroughly explained and detailed.

[Coastie for Truth]

5. An even sweeter revenge - Pennsylvania's "Instant Millionaire" ED

Pennsylvania has "Instant Millionaire" eminent domain-- even after the local "Board of Viewers" get their kick back and skim, and your local political parasites get theirs -- the homeowner comes out with well over 300% of what would be the "fair market value" in most other states. It's a formula called "comparable home in a comparable community" -- and was rushed through the legislature to build I-95 through Philadelphia and I-279 through Pittsburgh.

This was a "popular movement" -- it was passed by an NAACP organizer (Frankie Mae Jetter), a liberal community organizer (Martie Krauss) and an ACLU pro bono lawyer (Ed Mannino) - passed by a hard line leftie Governor (Milt Shapp - the gazillionaire inventor of cable tv) and really given muscle for the poor by a leftie Supreme Court Justice (Nick Papadakos).

When the State took farmland in Fayette County (South west of Pittsburgh on the WV border) to build I-70, the farmland was assessed at its value for highway interchange commercial development + plus a further sweetener.

The formula is so generous that it discourages eminent domain for private (non-governmental) projects. Since it has been passed and implemented - there hasn't been much private eminent domain action in Pittsburgh (cheaper to privately negotiate a deal with a "recalcitrant property owner" then to risk eminent domain and a much higher award - and that's the idea).

(Heck - before Pete killed Skybus - we were hoping Skybus East would have gone past our house --- instant millionaires - could have bought in Upper Saint Claire or Mt. Lebanon with the rich folks :) ).

[jtb33]

6. ROFL!

As sad as it sounds, it would be hilarious if this were to come to pass...

[sandnsea]

7. Truly the height of ignorance

Nobody seems to know what that case was about. The worst of it is that it is all about LOCAL CONTROL, which is what Republicans say THEY are for.

It was not just a luxury hotel, it was an entire community redevelopment project. A whole town should be kept in the 1930's because ten people don't want to sell their houses? I don't think so. Besides, if the local people don't like the emminent domain process in their state, change the laws there. The Supreme Court upheld the local laws, that's all. And if you think that's a bad idea, remember that if it's all about private ownership, then ANYBODY can do ANYTHING they want, zoning and land use goes right out the window.

[Coastie for Truth]

9. If there were no local zoning laws

I could put my Ham Radio Antenna as high as I wanted

CQ CG CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ

[Coastie for Truth]

10. And if it's my private property

I don't have to rent to anybody of a
different RACE
or different RELIGION
or different SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Hey - this is DU - where are we going on DU.

[sandnsea]

13. Exactly

Local land use laws, including emminent domain, are local. The process is local. What can and can't be done is local. Give the right to the individual above the community, and the rest goes out the window eventually too.

[earth mom]

18. I disagree!

the individual comes first. Why should people sell their homes so a bunch of yuppie yahoos can come in and take over? Not to mention profit handsomely off of others misery in the process?! Maybe some people prefer to live in a quiet 1930s style community that has none of the pressures or stupidity of keeping up with the Joneses. IMO, these type of communities have more charm than any cookie cutter master planned community can ever have in a million years!

The problem with this country is that people want to control other people and micro manage everyone elses' environments to suit THEMSELVES and that is so blatantly wrong! It's the * bot meme "if you're not with us, you're against us". What utter bullshit!

We should be fighting and supporting individuality rather than a controlled scripted group mind set that speaks purely of boring conformity rather than individuality and creativity. :puke:

[sandnsea]

19. I want to control my community

Sorry. We've got a guy who wants to build a bunch of condos on the riverfront. It would totally destroy the view of the dunes that our town is known for, and change the character of the downtown as well. Nope, he can't do that. The individual cannot fuck everything up for everybody else. The city voted in a 90 acre redevelopment project, everybody in the area agreed to it. Ten people should not be able to hold it up. Even though I do feel bad for them, especially when it is a family home in question. But this is nothing new, people have had to give up homes for progress forever.

[earth mom]

20. I see your point,

but not "everyone" voted for it-not those who will lose their homes. Those 10 homeowners will be out their homes and others WILL profit on their loss. There should be a better way to go about it that doesn't steal homes from the little guy. Because believe me, if those 10 homes were owned by the mega rich, this wouldn't be happening, no way, no how.

[sandnsea]

22. *sigh*

If the area was filled with homes of the mega rich, it wouldn't need revitalizing, now would it?

This is just the way it goes, either the local community has the final say in all cases or it's a free for all. They can write laws that says no home can be taken/bought for anything except total public projects, but I think people will be sorry down the road. Nobody should ever suffer financially at all in one of these deals, I have a bigger problem with that than the court ruling.

[KharmaTrain]

70. Best Statement Of The Case I've Read

Thank-you.

Yes, it's a local issue...also applies to all local services as well. Our area is built-up but there's a need for additional schools and other local services. The lands that can be used are being held by "investor groups" and others...holding out for top dollar. Eminent domain is an expensive and lengthy process...in the meantime the options are for overcrowded schools or paying up the nose for the land to build a needed school on.

I wish people would take the time to read this decision before they bought into the spin.

Cheers...

[Coastie for Truth]

24. So -lobby your state to adopt Pennsylvania's "Instant Millionaire" Law

The Law that gave the working folk of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - - just click over.

Pennsylvania's "Instant Millionaire" law was drafted for the working people of "Allegheny" (the working class neighborhood wiped out by I-279 in Pittsburgh) and "South Philadelphia" (the working class neighborhood between the Shupyard and South Street) - not yuppies - but working folk and small "Mom and Pop" family farmers displaced by highways.

And where did they go? Out to fancy suburbs where their kids lived - or they retired and moved to Florida and Arizona (can you afford to retire and move to Florida or Arizona? How about if you got three times the value of your house?).



<>

[sandnsea]

34. That's the way it should be

If you're going to force someone out of their home, they should be handsomely compensated for it.

[Coastie for Truth]

62. NO RICH FOLKS HIGHWAYS THRU POOR FOLKS BEDROOMS

was the campaign slogan.

The other campaign slogan was
A HOME FOR A HOME - A BUSINESS FOR A BUSINESS

the idea being a home is a home with certain "value" more then its value as a "house" which is just a structure

The classic I-70 eminent domain story was that a stretch of I-70 "landlocked" some subsistence farmers - retired coal miners with "Black Lung" - but their farms were taken at their value as frontage property for a hotel/gas station/restaurant complex (what they used to call a "DeBartolo Hotel Property") near an interchange (there was no actual interchange or service road) - and these one time subsistence farmers ended up with decent retire homes on the Florida Gulf Coast.

[smb]

27. Which Is It?

The city voted in a 90 acre redevelopment project, everybody in the area agreed to it. Ten people should not be able to hold it up.

It's traditional to insert padding between mutually exclusive statements. They look (slightly) less stupid that way.

[sandnsea]

33. I think people have comprehension abilties

Likely I'm stupid to think that, but there it is.

[The Straight Story]

59. Apples and Oranges

There is a difference between telling people what they cannot build versus telling them you get their property if you want it for something better.

We do and can have local control, but does local control trump the broader rights all US Citizens have?

[Coastie for Truth]

66. A recent Pennsylvania Case holds that

if the municipality changes zoning/environmental regs, whatever, without a "grandfather" clause - that is a "constructive taking" entitling the owner to an award under the Pennsylvania "Instant Millionaire" Eminent Domain law.

[rinsd]

11. Nice distraction...

...except emminent domain almost always affects the working and poor than anyone else.

Why should someone have to sell their house because the town wants to put a Walmart in?

This isn't about private property as an absolute and you know it. This was an expansion by precendent of the government's power of emminent domain in which public good now equals pays more taxes.

[sandnsea]

12. It was an entire project, parks, etc.

It was not just a hotel, it just wasn't. It was a 90 acre project that included all kinds of city improvements. This is absolutely nothing new, people have been forced to sell their homes for this kind of thing for decades, at least.

[SemperEadem]

15. they can locate it elsewhere

I don't see why 10 people should have to forfeit their property to put in a Walmart, another money-losing movie theatre, overpriced, cheaply constructed housing and a Mc Donald's.

[sandnsea]

16. They can't move their downtown

It's a downtown renewal project. NO they can't locate their downtown somewhere else. It is where it is.

[smb]

28. WTF?

If they put their renewal somewhere else, on land they can obtain legitimately and honestly, THAT will become "downtown".

[sandnsea]

30. Oh for pete's sake

Honestly. Even if you had business districts in other areas, do you just let the downtown rot? Have you ever lived in a fishing town and had to figure out what to do with the riverfront area? And if a riverfront area needs a hotel to promote tourism to benefit the entire community, why the hell shouldn't the city vote to put one in? What's the difference between that and a boardwalk?

[smb]

36. I Mind My Own Business

Have you ever lived in a fishing town and had to figure out what to do with the riverfront area?

Since I don't own the riverfront area, I need not worry my head trying to figure out what to do with it.

[sandnsea]

38. Interesting

Really politically involved there, eh? If you wouldn't worry about the riverfront in your own town, why the hell worry about this town in Connecticut?

[fudge stripe cookays]

80. Wal-Mart is not renewal.

Although some big companies want us to buy into the spin that it is.

It will move in, destroy MORE jobs, and take people's houses along with it.

Yep, THAT'S progress.
:eyes:
FSC

[smb]

26. RIGHTS trump "local control"

The worst of it is that it is all about LOCAL CONTROL

The rallying cry of Bull Connor and Lester Maddox....

[youspeakmylanguage]

29. A few questions...

1) Do you own a house? Or any property at all?

2) If you owned a house and lived there for 40 years or so, do you think you should be forced to sell your home and move simply because a private developer has "convinced" (i.e. bribed) local politicians into thinking that he MIGHT be able to generate more tax revenue than you do?

If so, then what is the point of purchasing a house? Why don't we all just turn over our property to the government and let them decide if and when homes should be torn down in the name of "progress"?

Answer honestly, please.

[sandnsea]

31. That is not what happened

Again, it is a 90 acre redevelopment project that includes a park, walking and bike paths, new housing, a whole bunch of stuff. Not just a hotel. This happens all the time. Any time there is a revitalization project, somebody ends up having to move that didn't want to.

[youspeakmylanguage]

35. And again...

You didn't answer my questions. These people will be forced from their homes for a "project" that may or may not benefit the community.

[sandnsea]

37. Obviously I do

I may not like it, but I agree with it. I think people should be compensated for it though, nobody should end up in financial difficulties in a situation like this. I don't own property right now, I'm in the process of buying. I have in the past, I understand the difficulty and attachment.

[youspeakmylanguage]

39. Then you and I have different opinions...

...on what constitutes private property rights.

To me, no amount of private development should force anyone from their homes unwillingly. Their homes and the land they sit on belong to them, not the community at large and certainly not to a private developer.

[jtb33]

40. Viewpoints

It seems to me that sandnsea has a socialist view of "private" property while youspeakmylanguage leans more Libertarian in views of "private" property. I side with youspeakmylanguage on this issue.

[youspeakmylanguage]

42. Not Libertarian, just American. (n/t)

[sandnsea]

45. Not American, Not Constitutional n/t

[youspeakmylanguage]

47. The decision can be overturned, like the Dredd Scott decisision...

...as hopefully, this one will.

Unfortunately, I have to depend on the Repug justices to do it.

[sandnsea]

48. Need a Constitutional Amendment

Eminent Domain is in the Constitution. No other way to overturn it.

[youspeakmylanguage]

50. Who says they can't restore the original intent of Eminent Domain?

...since being perverted by this recent decision. No amendment is required for that.

[sandnsea]

53. It is

The entirety of the project has been distorted.

[smb]

76. Yep

This one will take its place in the Supreme Court Hall of Shame: Dred Scott, Plessy, Korematsu, Bowers, Kelo....

[sandnsea]

43. I actually have a traditional view

That's why eminent domain is in the constitution. It's to keep any one individual from buying up a whole town and dumping poison in the river, blocking needed roads, or otherwise destroying the area at the expense of everybody else. Libertarians tend to have had the goodies from sensible law for so long that they haven't thought through the consequences of not having them.

[sandnsea]

41. I believe communities have rights too

As a whole. And sad as it is, one person shouldn't be able to stop a needed community project. Just like the one guy in my town shouldn't be able to destroy our downtown with his private development project and private property rights. This was not entirely a private development project, there was more involved than that. It's unfortunate that part of the story wasn't told.

[youspeakmylanguage]

44. Apple, meet Orange.

You're talking about commercial zoning. I'm talking about the private property rights of homeowners.

[sandnsea]

46. It all goes together

If private property rights trumps all, then it trumps zoning too. Can't have it both ways. Here, there's nothing in the zoning to prohibit what the developer wants to do, it would destroy the downtown and the city said no. That's all.

[youspeakmylanguage]

49. Wrong...

No one ever said private property rights trumps all. What has been, and will continue to be said, is that private homes should not be bulldozed to make way for commercial development.

This decision favored Corporatism over the working class. Nothing more, nothing less.

[sandnsea]

51. It's not just a commercial development

It's an entire revitalization project with parks, pathways, riverwalk, etc. Gads. City revitalization projects have been going on forever, with public and commercial aspects. People have to move when it happens. This is nothing new.

[youspeakmylanguage]

52. Really...

...so a private developer isn't going to actually own this development? I'm at work and I don't have time to revisit the details. Perhaps you can fill me in.

[sandnsea]

54. It's a revitalization project

They always involve public and private aspects. What would be the point otherwise, except to promote capitalist endeavours?

[youspeakmylanguage]

55. Well, see...

...in the past, Eminent Domain was applied when there was a direct and solid benefit to the community. Power lines were needed to provide power. Interstates were needed to connect rural communities, etc.

But now, all the justification needed to force the transfer ownership of private land from one citizen to another or from one citizen to a corporation is the POSSIBILITY (not even the certainty) that tax revenues will increase and benefit the local economy.

That, to me, is perverting a definition.

[sandnsea]

57. *sigh*

You want to believe your talking point, for whatever reason. There was more involved than the tax revenue, I've said that. Not to mention they followed state law, due process, which is what the Supremes upheld. Change state law, problem solved. Until it creates more problems than it solves.

[youspeakmylanguage]

61. "Until it creates more problems than it solves..."

Just make sure you aren't one of the ones who is uprooted and forced out before these problems overwhelm the solutions.

[smb]

77. Need Grassroots Action

Change state law, problem solved.

Connecticut Democrats are trying to stall the needed changes in state law. Grassroots Dems had better convince them to get behind the reforms, PDQ... unless they want Connectucut to turn bright stop-light-Superman-S-red.

[One_Life_To_Give]

81. If it's such a great project

Why not buy out the 10 homeowners? That is the great capitalist tradition.

Or is this about taking the old/poor/in the way and seeing how little we can give them to get them out of the way?

[Coastie for Truth]

68. Now under PA's "Instant Millionaire" law ...

it does benefit the homeowner. The homeowner can afford to leave PA -- and move to a nice retirement community.

You heard the line--
First Prize - a week in Pittsburgh.
Second prize - two weeks in Pittsburgh.
<><>

[Coastie for Truth]

67. I was born in PA - grew up in PA - owned a home in PA

if they wanted my home under Pennsylvania's "Instant Millionaire" Eminent Domain law -- "great. Where do I sign. I'm on my way to Palm Springs. The keys are on the kitchen table"

I also owned homes in two other states - and I wouldn't be so quick to settle under their cheapskate eminent domain laws.

[smb]

75. I Can't Help But Laugh... Or Cry

Why don't we all just turn over our property to the government and let them decide if and when homes should be torn down in the name of "progress"?

This is, of course, the cardboard stereotype of our agenda as seen by FReeper types... and yet (with a few fringe exceptions) we're as foursquare behind private property rights as any other America (because we recognize it as one of the few lines of defense the little guy has against the megacorps and their Boss Hogg hirelings in office).

[youspeakmylanguage]

79. Perhaps you could be a little more obtuse?

I wasn't quite confused enough by your post.

[slaveplanet]

65. It's you who doesn't get it

If the developer wanted the property, they were more than welcome to buy it in the 1930's....It's only desirable to build in these places now because of the same reasons the people of the 1930's bought it for....they liked the spot...should they be punished for that...I think not...property rights are what make America....America.

eminent Domain laws are meant for private to public(public works that remain public after development ie. municipal airports, highways, parks) transfers.

Private to private transfers are wrong and I believe unconstitutional.

[sandnsea]

71. It is a public project

How many times does that have to be said? And does private enterprise not make money from an airport? Don't some parks have private concessions? This story got spun out of the gate and nobody stopped to think about the real world application of eminent domain for at least a hundred years.

[slaveplanet]

72. with airports

yes, the carriers are private....but municipal airports are owned by the city. Much like a subway or bus station. The private carriers are allowed to operate there if they follow guidelines. If a hotel operates on airport property , the land is usually leased from the city.

That is a BIG difference than rewarding some developer who's managed to buy up a bunch of beachfront houses...then promises his buddies down at city hall
that he'll put in a new boardwalk, some sod and a park bench so that it can be called a public works project on the condition that the city 86's the remaining homeowners.

Do you think the city should operate the airlines too?..just so it qualifies as municipal.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with what's going on in Cleveland...a very similar situation to the scenario above...let's examine it further, shall we...

You may have heard of the flats ....In the late 80's early 90's the flats was a thing to behold. 20-30 bars raging every summer weekend, boats docked 10 deep off of every pier. Tourists and travelers would come in from Pittsburg , Detroit, western New York and farther to spend all their $$ for a weekend of partying and fun.

fast forward to today , it's nothing but rundown boarded up and closed businesses. Everyone agrees development must be done.

But the question is, what led to the loss of the golden goose?
There are about ten different contributing factors...not all that can be attributed to the Wolstein family(the majority owner of the buildings). But in the mid 90's they made their stance clear by being AWOL at Flats oxbow assoc. meetings who were trying to be proactive at the time. It died because Wolstein wanted it too...After all,How can you step in and be the hero savior if there's no decrepit problem?

The remaining owners are willing to sell , but for a fair price.
What's Wolstein done , he's left them out of planning , made moves in secret, teamed up with city hall. Basically, I'd be real nervous if I owned one of the buildings in the way.

so Mayor Jane Campbell comes out with a big announcement in the beginning of June...a massive public works project in the flats headed up by Wolstein development, supposedly multi tiered apartment units, with ground floor retail and a movie theater. The architect drawings look like something right out of any suburb USA.

I say it's designed for failure, they'll never keep the retail spaces occupied in the present economy.
To those who have a clearer picture of what's really going on, it's no secret that Wolstein and the mayor want a Hotel/casino there. One little problem , Gambling's illegal in Ohio...no worry they're working on it.

In the meantime , with this new ruling they'll muscle out the remaining owners for bottom dollar, Use TIF to deprive the schools of taxbase, and forge ahead with their little development. No worries they have a boardwalk and park bench for the public and Wolstein's only asking for a 40m handout for the improvements.

and when gambling is legalized...they just evict the idiot Tennant's and blow out the ground floor of the retail walls. Voila , instant waterfront Hotel Casino.

So ....public schmuglic....learn to read between the lines. This is not what eminent domain was intended for ...certainly not to reward the Lords and Barons who cause the problem in the first place. This is America , Not England or Russia.

here's some link...clearly the part about progressive insurance is not public either

http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1119605992191141.xml?ncounty_cuyahoga&coll=2

some other evidence of abuse around the country...
http://craigwestover.blogspot.com/2005/06/floodgates-open-following-kelo.html

[sandnsea]

73. Locals have to be more involved

I'm not stupid. There's a big highway frontage lot up the street from me that nobody but nobody could get approval to build on. Until the right muckety muck wanted to put in a lumber yard. Nursery, no. Lumber yard, yes. That sort of problem has existed forever as well. I certainly know how these sorts of things work. My point is, what is profiteering for one schmuck in one town is an honestly managed project in another. The principle is valid, if state laws have been followed, the Supreme Court is right to uphold a city's ability to make those decisions. They didn't decide on the validity of the project, just the right for the city to decide. If local people don't get involved and vote in people to protect them, then this is what they get. Sorry to say. In my town too.

[mixedview]

69. I agree with you, sandnsea

I would consider myself a left leaning libertarian and so people might think I'd automatically scream about the rights of the individual here.

Look, the fact of the matter is that nothing would ever get done - we would have none of the highways and schools and roads and stores and everything communities (and ultimately individuals) enjoy if we blindly followed libertarianism.

The founding fathers intended for democracy to moderate liberty, and for liberty to moderate democracy. And for federalism to moderate both.

There comes a point where the good of the community/the public good outweighs the rights of the individual. This is why local decision making is such an important concept in our system of government. Of course in such cases where clearly authoritarian action is going to be taken by the community, there should be near consensus on the issue - not just a simple majority. And the community should not undertake any action without first considering the rights of the individual, and the action should be in the general spirit of liberty. The invididual should be more than compensated for whatever the community is asking him/her to give up, and for the inconvience involved.

[zbdent]

8. Why not Sandy's, too? Since she is the "swing vote"

that made it law . . .

[converted_democrat]

14. Uh, Sandy dissented on it.....Why would they take her land? n/t

[zbdent]

56. You're correct.

I had forgotten who did what, and it just seemed likely that as the liberal swing vote, O'Conner would have been the tie-breaker.

My error. Unlike the misAdministration, I admit my error and beg forgiveness . . .

[converted_democrat]

58. Forget about it!!!!! All is forgiven my friend..............

Wish this misadministration had your style!!!!

[earth mom]

17. Go for it! Payback is a BITCH!

I hope they win, take his property and he learns a lesson!

bwah ha ha!!!!

[MsTryska]

21. okay here's my question....why si everyone picking on Souter?

Did he have soem special influence ont he Decision?

how coem no one else that voted with him is getting suits brought agaisnt their holdings?

[jtb33]

23. I think he wrote the majority opinion on this case...

n/t

[Coastie for Truth]

25. Why Not Pick On Justice Papadakis (Dem-PA Supreme Court) ?

He said you have to be made into an instant millionaire when they take your house or business.

[Maru Kitteh]

32. If they are offering up shares for sale

I'd be happy to pitch in and contribute what we can.

Memo to Souter: Ain't karma a bitch?

[AntiCoup2K4]

60. Actually, I'm planning a couple of resorts myself

One in Crawford Texas and the other in Kennebunkport Maine.

Anybody interested in investing? :evilgrin:

[Wabbajack]

64. We have common ground with the freepers

holy sh*t!

[smb]

78. We have common ground with the freepers

Pretty much everybody (except the special interests that stand to profit and the corrupt politicos who work for them -- duh) is appalled by this decision.

[HR_Pufnstuf]

74. Souter Public Parking Lot

nt

[reprehensor]

82. I tried to bring this up for discussion in GD Politics...

The topic is archived now;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1943020

Nobody bit except for one MJDuncan guy.

Please keep discussing this issue.

My opinion is that THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE DISCUSSION.

Simply telling people to shut up because they are ignorant doesn't work very well.

Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, everybody is making this their issue except the Democrats, and the issue is busily being framed as a 'little-guy gets screwed by private developers' issue.

I disagree that the ruling was simply about 'keeping it local'.

The ruling was indicative of the SC's reluctance to break with precedent and put parameters on the interpretation of 'public use', which they could have done.

Now, mostly Republican pols are introducing legislation that does exactly that. If f'n John Cornyn can do it, why couldn't the SC?

I think people have varying opinions on this topic, and simply telling proponents of property ownership to shut up because it's for the greater good, that they are ownership 'extremists' is pushing voters toward the RED TEAM.

Note: THAT IS BAD.

There is a bit more in the post I linked above, but hey, "can we talk?"

Ok, talk amongst yourselves, I have to go back to work now.

[smb]

83. You Said It

I think people have varying opinions on this topic, and simply telling proponents of property ownership to shut up because it's for the greater good, that they are ownership 'extremists' is pushing voters toward the RED TEAM.

Yep -- this sort of political tone-deafness is why the Pubbies can keep getting reelected even after their dirty laundry slips out.