We have lost the 2006 election Thanks to the Liberal members of the SC

[wakeme2008]

IMHO, Rove and friends will be hitting the airwaves with the Democrats and liberal judges want to take your homes away from you and give it to the government...

OK they will not say, that Walmart and other Repugs companies make out like a bandits. ...

Why oh why when 2006 looked so good, did the left side of the SC give a wedge issue as big as gays marrying for the Repugs to use against us.....


:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[BattyDem]

1. The Repugs control everything ...

if they were really concerned about the government taking people's home, they could easily pass laws to prevent it. That's what the Dems need to point out in their ads.

[wakeme2008]

3. This is a Major Wedge Issue that we should NOT have had to face

in 2006... The SC just forced the Dems to have to defend themselves over taking "grandma" home....

[BattyDem]

16. I know ... it sucks.

I don't know why the "liberal" judges voted the way they did.

We're being f*cked from every direction. :-(

[stepnw1f]

2. They Are "Liberal"?

Sorry, but I didn't think any of them were "Liberal". But that's what right-wing radio keeps saying over and over and over....

[wakeme2008]

4. Right and out to take Grandma's home from her... nt

[stepnw1f]

10. I'm A Liberal

And Liberals do not UNDERMIND the people! But People who keep repeating this shit, are doing the Nazis a favor.

[JDPriestly]

5. This is nothing new.

The states have always had the right to eminent domain, and they have been using it for "community redevelopment" purposes for decades now. The constitutional protection ensures they have to pay you just compensation for your property. It doesn't ensure that the state can't force you to sell it. They have been taking private property from one private party and giving it to another for some time now. The theory is that this improves the value of the property for the tax base and increases taxes. Governments do this -- whether Democratic or Republican.

[Sushi-Lover]

11. I disagree with you on the issue too, but in terms of

political strategy it does not matter. The decision will put this into the mind of the public and the argument that you are making will not hold up against the image of grandma weeping in front of her house while the bulldozers rev up.

[wakeme2008]

12. Right and Rove will have lots of Grandma's crying the Blues

while the "government" steals her home because of those "liberal" SC Judges said it was OK.

[BooScout]

15. True, but it was mostly limited to "Blighted Areas"

Eminent Domain has in the past been interpreted as taking property for "Public use" - ie. for roads, schools, etc....but then they started condemning "Blighted areas" in order to revitalize. It's stands to reason that once we started down that slope, it was only a matter of time until governments started using eminent domain as a means to increase tax revenues by allowing private developers to build shopping malls, hotels, etc. on "prime properties" as well.

One thing I do know for sure......this decision has pissed off the Liberals in this country just as much as the Conservatives.

[JDPriestly]

24. One person's blight

is another's dream home. Frankly, here in Los Angeles, I find some of the mansions of over ten thousand square feet to be the real blight. We had a case in which a huge mansion was built close to the bottom of a hill. After the recent rainstorms, the whole hill gave way and a number of houses slid right down. Some people blamed the huge mansion for having pulled the rest of the hill downward. I don't know if that is technically possible, but I suspect that possibility will be investigated.

I suppose we could pass a constitutional amendment to make this illegal, however, then every time a city wanted to build a school and use the power of eminent domain, there would be a big fight over whether it was really going to be used for a public purposes. Remember, shipping facilities, airports, all large public facilities, usually involve taking some land based on eminent domain. While they benefit the public as a whole, they usually benefit a few corporations or individuals a lot more than the rest of us.

The people in the town in question should vote out the city council people who decided to use the power of eminent domain to benefit Pfizer.

[Sushi-Lover]

6. All the Democrats need to grab a soapbox

and start talking about this. Now. It needs to be very very hard for anyone to say they supported it after the next few days.

[rzemanfl]

7. Nah, its their Bibles we want to take away, remember? n/t

[wakeme2008]

14. And their GUN and with this their HOMES... nt

[rzemanfl]

20. But after the gun is pried from their "dead cold fingers" they won't

be needing the house anyway.

[zoeb]

8. use this argument

Unions are good....great pay, benefits....you can afford to save for retirement...

Show them the alternative...WAL-MART....low wages, low pay , no retirement and getting health care through the state.

Your stinking tax dollars are subsidizing your low China made products from Wal-Mart to provide health care for those that can't afford it!!!

[dbonds]

9. If this was a liberal issue then I have to reconsider what liberal is.

I can not for a second believe this is in anyway liberal to take private land from one person to give to another.

[wakeme2008]

13. But that is not what ROVE will paint,,, the conservative SC

wanted to protect Grandma's home but that land and gun grapping Liberals SC Judges want to take homes and guns from you...

[AX10]

17. Rove will say this:

"Democrats want to take your Bibles, Guns, and now Homes". Now we all know this is Crap, but Rove has the right wing noise machine ready for attack at any time.

:argh:

[wakeme2008]

18. But this adds little old Grandma to the video.... No longer able to

fight off "Big Government"... :grr:

[Enquiringkitty]

19. I remember when I first heard about this in the 60s. The government

took 15 homes to make way for a new factory to be built near our town. Feds said that it would represent hundreds of jobs and improve our local society. The liberals at that time said that "the individual sacrificing for the good of the whole society was socialism...not capitalism and unless we were going to now be a socialist country, the individual has rights and the government should negotiate a deal which both side are happy with just as they in the real estate business must do or provide the displaced families with another home and move them.

Five years ago the state took my father's business so they could build a parking lot for the gambling boats. They gave him the value of the land ... not the value of the business and livelihood he would be loosing. Broke his heart and will. Turned him into an old man too soon.

[losdiablosgato]

27. Sorry about you Father,

But his story happens all the time. That is why this pisses me off so much.

[Stevepol]

21. The only thing that matters now in winning elections is vote counting.

If the vote counting becomes fair and transparent, Dems will win. If it remains as it is today, the Repubs can't lose. They will gain another two or three seats in 06 and they will win the 08 Presidential race by a larger margin than they "won" it this time.

That is, the voting machines will be able to engineer the win more easily this time. CA may even go Repub. It looks as if they'll get the voting machines there with no paper trail or audits.

Eventually, enough people will demand a voter-verified paper ballot and audits for EVERY ELECTION that uses DRE's to count the vote. When that happens, democracy will return to America.

Every thought and prayer should be aimed toward that end.

Not that other issues aren't important. It's just that we need to see that this is the single issue that has THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE PRIORITY.

[Geek_Girl]

22. 7 out of 9 SC Justices are Republican appointed

If you see or hear any nonsense about SC liberal judges taking peoples homes away call in write letters ect and point out the supreme court is overwhelmingly republican controlled.

[Coexist]

26. exactly - the Republican-appointees are in the majority

on the SCOTUS. I would prepare a fact sheet with the Justices who voted for this, and who appointed them for quick distribution for LTTE, and flyers to hand out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Confirmation_of_current_Justices
<snip>
Current Justices
As of 2005, the United States Supreme Court Justices are:

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (born 1924, appointed by Richard Nixon in 1971 and elevated by Ronald Reagan in 1986);
Justice John Paul Stevens (born 1920, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975);
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (born 1930, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981);
Justice Antonin Scalia (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986);
Justice Anthony Kennedy (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1988);
Justice David Souter (born 1939, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1990);
Justice Clarence Thomas (born 1948, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1991).
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (born 1933, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993);
Justice Stephen Breyer (born 1938, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994);
Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas are generally considered to be the conservative wing of the court. Justices Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens are generally considered to the liberal wing. Justices Kennedy and O'Connor are typically seen as moderates, and hence are the swing votes who often determine the outcome of close cases.


Confirmation of current Justices
Name Date Confirmed Senate Vote reference
Rehnquist December 10, 1971 65-33 <1> (http://www.supremecourthistory.org/myweb/justice/rehnquist.htm)
Stevens December 17,1975 98-0 <2> (http://www.supremecourthistory.org/myweb/justice/stevens.htm)
O'Connor September 21, 1981 99-0 <3> (http://www.supremecourthistory.org/myweb/justice/o'connor.htm)
Scalia September 17, 1986 98-0 <4> (http://www.supremecourthistory.org/myweb/justice/scalia.htm)
Kennedy February 3, 1988 unanimous <5> (http://www.supremecourthistory.org/myweb/justice/kennedy.htm)
Souter October 2, 1990 90-9 <6> (http://www.supremecourthistory.org/myweb/justice/souter.htm)
Thomas October 15, 1991 52-48 <7> (http://www.supremecourthistory.org/myweb/justice/thomas.htm)
Ginsburg August 10, 1993 97-3 <8> (http://www.supremecourthistory.org/myweb/justice/ginsburg.htm)
Breyer July 29, 1994 87-9 <9> (http://www.supremecourthistory.org/myweb/justice/breyer.htm)

[Independent_Liberal]

23. Nah! We haven't lost!

We have to keep countering the attacks. We can win!

[Al-CIAda]

25. Since the Dems (Dean included) refuse to adress the RIGGED machines

in the hands of a criminal opposition, of course we will lose.

Fuck em all.