Quote from freeperville about the Corporate land seizure ruling

[Frangible]

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

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[merh]

1. You are right.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

5. Well, if you'd read the opinions,

and get the information on the background of the case, you'd understand that what happened today is, perhaps, not what you (mistakenly) think happened.

Check out the links and then read the opinion. We all have a duty to be informed. Otherwise, our opinions are empty and worthless.

[Walt Starr]

23. No, what happened today is PRECISELY what I thouhgt happened

The more money you have, the more rights to property you have, even if the "you" is a faceless papaer creation of hot air.

Property rights for actual human beings are gone forever.

That's what happened today. Fortuantely, I have exercised my rights under the second amendment so that when they come for my house, I'll be taking a few of the bastards with me.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

26. That's kind of an extreme view

No, that's not at all what happened.

It was a procedural matter, more than anything.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/000/04-108.html

There. Read the opinion. Nothing's changed in the way of eminent domain in this country. Absolutely nothing. You should be as concerned about it today as you were last week. Really.

Nice. Guns to solve problems. Jesus.

[Walt Starr]

33. Yes, it all changed becuase this is the first time the SCOTUS has ruled

that public use is defined as private companies stealing private property.

And damn straight, they come for my home, I'll shoot them dead on the spot!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

38. It simply codified

what's been in state and local laws for years. That's all.

Nothing has changed.

You really have to read the opinion, and then read the history of the case. You'll see how it's really nothing new, and, in fact, I think it's a whole lot better now, with determinations being in the hands of local governments, who might have a better feel for the history of places. "Might" being the operative verb there.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/000/04-108.html

[Walt Starr]

45. I HAVE read the opinion

and O'Connor was spot on. The majority blew it and handed special property rights to the rich.

Sorry, but if the next SCTOS appointee put up by Bush is opposed to this ruling, they have my support 100%.

I don't care what anybody thinks of that statement. This issue burns me up and the so-called "liberals" are acting like the Poliburo in this decision.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

48. No, no, no

As I said, it codified existing laws. Threw the power back to the localities.

This is daily business. Where was your outrage about this very same matter yesterday, last week, last year, when it was taking place, and has been taking place? Why pick now to be so pissed about something that's been going on for years and years?

It's a civil procedure case, that's all. The hot air being blown around is just amazing.

[Walt Starr]

61. I have been outraged for years over this

I finally thought somebody would be willing to stick up for human rights, but no. The SCOTUS has become a new Politburo, confiscating personal property to enhance the position of the collective.

Screw that, my opinion of any potential SCOTUS nominee hinges on this single issue, and nothing else. My opinion of any official seeking office at any level hinges on this single issue. Party labels are now out of the window as far as I'm concerned.

This is bad law, comparable to the bad law in Dred Scott.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

62. You never heard of eminent domain?

It's nothing but a procedural case, the one that came down today. Nothing has changed.

Human rights?

This was property rights, not human rights. Very different animals.

It's not bad law - in fact, it's a step in the right direction, giving more power to localities, which is good.

Dred Scott?

I think maybe you're confused. If you read the opinion, it might assuage your agitation and then you wouldn't be so angry.

[Walt Starr]

64. THIS HAS NOT ONE GOD DAMNED THING TO DO WITH EMINENT DOMAIN!

Read the fucking constitution. Here, let me help you:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Grabbing private property from a human being who has rights and then turning over that private property to a private entity so that private entity can make a big profit has NOT A SINGLE THING TO DO WITH PUBLIC USE!!! It lines the pockets of big political donors and their toadies in the local government at the expense of human rights.

This was all about expanding public use to include PRIVATE PROFIT!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

66. Decaf for you, son

Decaf. Lots and lots of decaf.

Then, back to law school and do it right this time.

[Walt Starr]

69. Bullshit

What you have are shitloads of corporations gleefully rubbing their grubby paws over the fact that eminent domain has been redefined from public USE to whatever they want to allege is public "good".

It's a bullshit ruling and I support any SCOTUS nominee who will denounce the ruling in front of the committee. I will be writing to both of my Senators regarding this.

IMO, only a COMMUNIST would support this abomination of a ruling.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

71. Not bullshit

Decaf.

So, tell me how it compares to Dred Scott. I'm curious, since I don't understand.

Communist? I don't understand that, either.

Where was your outrage when poor people were evicted from their homes because of eminent domain? It's always been going on, so I'm wondering if this is upsetting you because it's now hitting the urban middle class.

You don't seem to grasp that this is a procedural matter. That could be upsetting you, too.

In any event - - - :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Walt Starr]

73. I understand it all too well

and it compares to Dred Scott in the utterly ludicrous bad legal precedent it sets.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

74. Can you please be more specific?

I mean, that's a very large statement with a very small rationale. Sort of inflammatory. Do you know of any other cases besides Dred Scott that you might compare it to so that I might understand what you're saying?

[Walt Starr]

75. Well, I would say Bush v. Gore

except the court covered their ass and made sure that one could never be cited as precedent.

Edited to add: Plessy v. Ferguson comes to mind as well. Sorry, but I had to look up the correct spelling of "Plessy".

[OldLeftieLawyer]

76. Ah

Sure.

Gotcha.

Right.

Dear god, thank you for not letting this guy be a lawyer.

[Walt Starr]

77. LOL

Um, my wife, who is a lawyer, keeps pushing me to be one.

I recognize bad rulings when I read them, and this one is one of the worst ever.

What this abomination does is open up SCOTUS approved graft and corruption on an entirely new level, at the expense of human beings, their property rights and their rights under the fifth amendment.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

78. Ah, yes,

the "Lawyer By Insertion" syndrome.

See it all the time.

Non-fatal, but terrifically amusing.

[Walt Starr]

79. Well, since you *CLAIM* to be an attorney by virtue of your SN

how does a court test that real property is not transferred from A to B for B's benefit solely based upon the majority decision as written?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

80. Ask your wife

Or is her JD as cheap and worthless as you think they all are?

[Walt Starr]

81. Please, provide the quote where you allege I said

that I hold *ALL* JD's in contempt.

I await your apology for the hyperbole.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

82. Stop begging

You're embarrassing yourself.

Wait all you want. With that gas, you're probably gonna spend all your time flying around the room, anyway.

[Walt Starr]

83. Again with the personal attacks

Those who have no argument generally resort to ad hominems.

Typical...

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[GiovanniC]

88. I Agree With You Wholeheartedly Walt

Reverse Robin Hood. Steal from the poor, give to the rich.

It's total 110% unadulterated bullshit.

[LiberalAndProud]

65. Nothing has changed. Isn't that the problem?

Pfizer -- I am so not surprized that this company stands to benefit from the "taking".

[OldLeftieLawyer]

67. Right

It's been done to poor people forever. Only now that the urban middle class is getting the short end of the stick - and they're adequately compensated, at least, while most poor people were only tenants - it's sparking interest.

Whose ox is being gored, I guess.

[RobinA]

97. The Only Way

I could agree that this is a step in the right direction is if I believed that localities are going to go out there and start limiting their own power. I have no such confidence. I depend on the Constitution to back rights up when when the locals go loco. Court of last resort and all that.

[Fire Walk With Me]

49. What it this is a good cop/bad cop issue, and they WANT that support

as a lesser of two evils, and then hit the thumbscrews once they're in?

[RobinA]

96. Well....

I did read the opinion and I didn't like the sounds of it, but hell what do I know. Then I read the dissent(s), and apparently there are some people who know what they are talking about who also think there's something new in the opinion.

[wuushew]

28. You are not serious about using lethal force in defense of property?

human life > value of property


Texas scares me

[Walt Starr]

31. You're damned right I'd use lethal force in defense of my home

and I don't live in Texas!

[ClinGoreKerrPelo]

93. 04-108 / Lethal Force

04-108 is, in my non-lawyer opinion, one of the worst decisions ever handed down by the Supremes. The Founders are spinning in their graves.

And yes, if you or anyone else enters my home uninvited, lethal force is both authorized and forthcoming.

[merh]

57. And maybe my response is exactly in line with your

interpretation of what the case means and does not warrant your rather heavy handed opinion of me or your chastising me.

The misunderstanding of a ruling unites freepers & DUers, I don't know whether to laugh or cry, given the more shocking things happening to my country and because of my country today.

It would be nice if you didn't try to insult people without first understanding their post! :smoke: If you have a question, ask before judging.

I swear, there are times I would flip off posters if I thought I could get away with it. Especially rude and judgmental posters. :mad:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

70. Yeah, well,

there you go. Ignorance is sometimes bliss, and when it's yanked away, all that's left is naked indignation and confusion.

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[merh]

84. Oh yeah!

Oh yeah! :silly:

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[Guaranteed]

85. Another flamewar c/o OldLeftieLawyer.

You're not only a consummate professional, but a real asset to this community.

[steve2470]

87. sarcasm or sincerity ? nt

[sam sarrha]

2. cancerious Fascism.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

6. I like that

"Cancerious." i like that new word.

Hardly Fascism. Go read the opinion.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

3. Here's the explanation for the DU folks

who didn't quite understand what the Supreme Court said - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1879919

Here's another excellent post by someone who also knows the terrain, so to speak: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3928868

And with that, the DUers leave the freepers behind because DUers can read.

[Frangible]

8. Yes, I read the ruling

And I don't agree with it, so you can do better than call me uninformed because I don't share your opinion.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

10. "... call you uninformed..."?

Where the hell did you get that?

Did you read the entire opinion, and the dissents? I don't know what you mean by "ruling," so I have to ask.

It's interesting.

I post something here to help people understand what went on, and it's taken as if I called someone "uninformed."

Thin skin is one thing.

Willful ignorance is another.

That's what I'd expect from freepers, but offering links in order to spread good information and having someone take it as a personal rebuke is just lame.

[zanne]

12. Actually, OldLeftieLawyer, you did call him "uninformed"

We all have the ability to read. Re-read your post.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

14. I wrote,

"We all have a duty to be informed."

And someone thinks that sentence calls HIM "uninformed"?

Is that what you're referring to?

[zanne]

55. Now you're just being "cute".

You want to be able to say something unflattering to someone, but you put it in general terms so that when you're called on it, you can say "But I never said that"!

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[GiovanniC]

9. Here's My Problem

One of the guys in this case... the house was built by his great grandfather. His elderly parents live there. There is a rich history of tradition and heritage in this home. Also on the property is a house that his grandmother gave him and his wife as a wedding gift. He gardens the same soil that his grandmother did.

What is the fair market value of tradition, heritage, sentiment, and history?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

11. That's the heart of eminent domain

And, yes, there is a heartbreaking element to it.

Unfortunately, it is resolved with money, and, while I agree that money is no substitute for tradition, heritage, sentiment, and history, this Supreme Court ruling now makes such acts easier to handle, being within the scope of local governments.

So, there would be, one might expect, more understanding of the history, and, perhaps, more compassion.

It's a good ruling.

[GiovanniC]

16. The Heartbreaking Element

Using eminent domain should only be used when ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY -- sort of like military force.

That's not what's happening in this case or many others. Instead, it is being used a Reverse Robin Hood to steal from the poor (and when you take away a home that's been through four generations of heritage against the will of the owners, that's stealing whether you give "fair market value" or not) and giving to the rich. For what? More expensive houses, strip malls, office building for huge corporations, resort hotels... give me a fucking break.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

18. That is the history of Eminent Domain

And, yes, the rich usually do get what they want over the bodies and homes of the less-affluent. That's the history.

But, that's why this decision is so significant. It really will make you feel better, I'm certain.

[GiovanniC]

20. It Doesn't

Because I know that it could be my parents' farm that becomes a Super Walmart next.

The only way I would feel comfortable about this ruling is if I was filthy rich and didn't give a flying fuck about anyone else.

[Ian David]

35. You could go "scorched earth" and irreperably pollute your property

Just at the last minute, when you're headed out the door to sign the papers.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

40. And be prosecuted n/t

[Walt Starr]

36. It's a damnable decision and any SCOTUS appointee

who would support such an abomination would lose my support.

Any candidate who supports this decision loses my support.

This transcends party labels. This is my biggest issue for 2006 and will be how I base my vote in all cases at all levels.

[Ian David]

32. Let's all pitch-in to build something in Crawford, Texas

Something big, stinky, polluting, ugly and noisy that involves lots of trucks going up and down the little highways.

[Sushi-Lover]

72. Exactly ...

tell me what the just compensation is for that?

[earth mom]

29. I see what you're saying...

but how much hell do people have to pay? How much more bullshit and injustice does government have to throw at all of us-local, state or federal?!

And if the Supreme Court wanted to throw the power over this issue back to the states, why didn't they reject the case in the first place?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

34. Certiorari

That's one way of sending a message, and maybe that's what the Supreme Court wanted to do. But, with the dispute at hand, they took it, probably because it fit their needs (that's how it works, whether people want to believe it or not - the Supreme Court is the most political of the three parts of government).

This aggravation that you're expressing, that all these posts are expressing, suggest to me that people don't really understand what the decision said. If they did, they'd shrug and go on.

If the concept of eminent domain wasn't keeping you awake last night, there's no reason for it to keep you upset today.

Read the opinion.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/000/04-108.html

[Ian David]

41. Even if you're right (you usually are) that doesn't mean we can't use it

Hey, they've finally thrown us a wedge of our own that makes some of us angry, and makes the freepers angry.

Right or wrong, let's get the freepers worked-up about it and place the blame on the GOP.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

44. Huh?

I'm never right. Snap out of it.

Oh, come on now. Baiting freepers is about as challenging as watching paint dry. You're too smart to waste time with stuff like that.

Go do something great..................

[Ian David]

50. Not so much BAITING as re-directing their hostility toward their own

Remember The Great Freeper Purges of 2005?

When those who disagreed with Bush's immigration reforms were booted out?

Remember what Sean Hannity said about the Freeper tendency of "eating their own?"

I'm just suggesting putting some blood in the water and dangling Republicans in front of them.

So, I'm not BAITING... I'm CHUMMING?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

51. Chum

In America, they call it "sushi." Japan's revenge on us for WWII, George Carlin says.

No, I don't remember any of that since I don't bother with those people. I've never seen Sean Hannity or any of those people.

You've got energy. Use it for something constructive. God knows we need it now more than ever.

[Hugin]

43. Where do you live OLL?

I think there's some gravel under your house I need.

I'll be there with the backhoe in the morning.

Remember... I only have to pay what's FMP for the
gravel in the land. Not the land itself or any
structures on said property.

Don't worry I'll shove it all back into the pit
when I'm done.

;)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

52. Get the court order,

and we're just a bit from the Pentagon and the White House.

You'll have lunch with us, yes?

[Hugin]

89. Don't need one... This is for the "war" effort.

This scenario has happened to my family twice.

It *won't* happen again.

[ComerPerro]

47. Thanks for the links

Too many reactionary people here.

I mean, come on!

We are sounding like FReepers!

"Impeach the judges!"

whaa??

[OldLeftieLawyer]

53. Scary, no?

I really do not understand.

But, thank you. I feel less alone now.

Hold me. :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[zanne]

56. What is your legal experience, OldLeftieLawyer?

It must be immense. You claim that people who disagree with you simply don't "understand". Quite an ego, there.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

58. Yes, I can ...........

Because most people don't read what they're bleating about, and that, my friend, has made OldLeftieLawyer a lot of money in her professional life.

Without an ego, what would anyone be?

[zanne]

90. Obviously, without an ego, one would be...

not as good as you, OldLeftyLawyer. Please forgive my impertinence, oh gifted one. I am a mere mortal who does not understand your omnipotent ways. Since you have made alot of money with your brilliance, you must be anxious to devour all the old neighborhoods you can. After all, this is all about you.

[liberal N proud]

4. Yeah, I got a repuke on that one today

He keeps asking me what liberties we have lost under bu$h.
He couldn't argue on that one.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

13. Tell him about his right to privacy

Ask him if he thinks his banking records are safe from the prying eyes of government. His credit history. His travel records.

Ask him if he ever heard of H.R. 3162 and what it does to Americans.

I'd urge you to ask him if he believes his book-buying habits and library records are also safe from the same prying eyes, but, you know, that would just be silly.

[liberal N proud]

17. Oh I have but this is the first one he couldn't justify in the fight on

TERRA

[OldLeftieLawyer]

19. What's to fight?

It's a states' rights case, not any kind of civil rights case.

Methinks there's something missing in the equation. There was nothing regarding "liberties" in this Eminent Domain case. If anything, it just means that the decisions are left to local governments.

There's no fight there, unless one of you is a huge fan of Federal intervention.

[GiovanniC]

27. I'm Not a Fan of ANY Government Entity Seizing Land Unnecessarily

I trust local government only *slightly* more than the federal government, but the point is that "public use" as used in the Fifth Amendment should not be defined as, "Whatever the government damned well says 'public use' is".

I'm tired of government saying that taking away the family farm to give to a development corporation to build a strip mall is "public use".

[OldLeftieLawyer]

30. Eminent Domain

is as old as our Republic.

It's always been a difficult area. It always seems unfair to me, too.

[GiovanniC]

37. Yeah, Just Ask The Native Americans

That doesn't make it right, even when used for *PUBLIC* use.

But when it's used to take away the home your great grandfather built so that a developer can build some million-dollar condos, that's WAY over the line.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

39. This is hardly the first time

This is one of the more benign cases, believe me. There are some wild-ass eminent domain stories out there.

[GiovanniC]

42. I'm Not Saying It Is

I've been following eminent domain cases for a LOOONG time. The existence of other outrages does not serve to make this any less outrageous, however.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

46. Yeah,

the whole government grabbing anything privately owned idea is offensive, I agree.

[GiovanniC]

22. I Just Had My Boss Tell Me Today

That "right to privacy" is bullshit and nobody should be entitled to that anyway.

He also thinks that the Board of Education should be disbanded.

Yes, he is a damned fruitcake.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

24. Fruitcakes everywhere

rise up, demanding you apologize for unfairly comparing them to your boss.

He does sound really, really stupid, though.

[malaise]

7. If it wakes up citizens

laugh.

[izzie]

15. Read the NYTimes. and I think the ruling is wrong.

I think Cato has it right. There will not be a safe place to live and own if some one with money wants it. :grr:

[steve2470]

21. here's the opinion

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/000/04-108.html

[bpilgrim]

63. thank you - much more reassuring after reading the source vs the M$MWs

specially talk-radio's rw wackos

phew, thank you for sharing :toast:

peace

[Ian David]

25. Wow, maybe we should give them a big hug

I thought about doing an OnLine survey to find opinions that DU'ers and Freepers might share.

I wouldn't do it here on DU. That would be like inviting bears to your picnic.

I think they'd be very surprised, given what they've been told about us, and believed in their typical, un-questioning way.

Do you think Freepers like the idea of increasing the levels of lead, mercury and selenium in the water?

Of sending troops to war without body armor?

Do they know how many people on DU believe in the 2nd Amendment and own guns? Would they be worried if they did?

I mean, I know that they're a stupid, over-conforming, gullible, regimented lot, but the one thing they care about most is their own, selfish best interests. They're just too stupid to know what's good for them.

Does ANYONE think lead, arsenic, mercury, and asbestos poisoning are in their best interests? Even Freepers? Are they somehow immune from toxins?

[cthrumatrix]

54. they are being conn'd..... people are PAWNS under bush

[SammyWinstonJack]

60. Cry!

I can just hear it now. "Liberals want your guns and your bibles and as if that weren't enough, NOW they want your houses!"

[FreedomAngel82]

68. Hear hear

On this Christian board I frequented all of them were upset too but then again these people aren't the freeper type.

[DS1]

86. Except in the same breath, FR collectively blames this on liberal judges

and cry for CONSERVATIVE judges to take over.

Fuckwits.

[Czolgosz]

94. 1. The Republican dominated court wrote an opinion

2. which was signed by a majority of Republicans
3. which favored big businesses over individuals.

Which part of this is news?

This, as far as I can tell, is business as usual.

Take the interesting example of one underachieving oilman from west Texas. This is a guy who drove a few oil companies into the ground and then wrongly used his insider knowledge to avoid taking the financial loss personally and ultimately violated SEC rules about reporting the matter. Turns out, this guy was a failure at everything he touched, but his daddy was a big shot politician.

The Texas Rangers baseball team wanted to build a new stadium in Arlington, Texas, and they wanted the government to take land away from Texas families to build the stadium. But the Texas Rangers didn't have the political clout to do this until they came up with the genius idea of selling part of the team (for pennies on the dollar, it was a real sweetheart deal) to this failed oilman with the politically connected daddy. This was basically a Texas version of the deal where the Libyan government hired Billy Carter to help them negotiate the purchase of transport planes while Jimmy Carter was president.

This deal completely screwed the Mathes family out of their land in Arlington, Texas. In fact, the Mathes family didn't even get a one fifth of the fair market value for their land which they were kicked off.

The result? Well, the failed oilman was well paid for helping screw the Mathes family out of their land. The Texas Rangers got the failed oilman $14 million for the part of the team it sold him for only $600,000 (which is a hell of a lot bigger payoff than Billy Carter ever got). In 1993, the Houston Chronicle newspaper asked the failed oilman if he deserved credit for the stadium, he said "When all those people in Austin say, 'He ain't never done anything,' well, this is it."

I don't have to tell you who the failed oilman was, do I?

[BR_Parkway]

95. True Conservatives should be appalled. There isn't a terribly

wide gap seperating actual liberals and actual conservatives. The problem is the way some of these terms have been hijacked and warped far beyond their original meanings.

[Senior citizen]

98. Everyone knows the old saying,

"A man's home is the corporation's castle."

And we all know that conservatives are protective of private property so long as it belongs to a corporation instead of a person.

First they privatized public services, and we didn't do anything because they said it would save us money, which it didn't.

Then they privatized public lands, and we didn't do anything because it wasn't actually "our" property that was at stake.

Then they privatized our homes, and we couldn't do anything because the Supreme Court said that it was in the public good for big corporations to be able to take away our homes.

So when they privatize our water (something they've tried in other places, only to meet with riots and be forced to back down), we won't be able to do anything because the wardens in the privatized prisons we will have been placed in for opposing privatization, won't have to give drinking water to prisoners who can't afford to pay for it.

And yes, when corporations own and run a government, the way they do ours, it is called fascism, but government seizure of private property is called Communism. And the neo-cons don't care what you call it, because they're better at name-calling than we are.

There is going to be so much anger about this one that if they hadn't already privatized the election systems, they'd never win another election.

[Joj Bush]

99. Future looking bleak

One of the main arguments I used to use before Bush's reelection was the Supreme Court nominees. Now no matter what happens to the members we'll either have eminent domain for private use or banning of abortion. At least if abortion is banned you can take a "vacation" then come back. If they steal your home you're just fucked.