Couldn't Bush come out against the Supreme courts ruling if he didn't like .

[southernleftylady]

it?
like he did with Terri schivo?
maybe he isn't as upset has all of we are??
hmm..
im not saying he could change it.. just come out against it like he did terri schivo..
just point that out next time a freep says something about it

[shoelace414]

1. It's how he made his first million

[spanone]

2. Bush* never met a pro-business ruling he didn't endorse.

[bowens43]

3. Bush can not overturn the Supreme Courts decision.

Coming out against would not change the ruling.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

4. Why should he?

Read the opinion. The ruling changes nothing. Absolutely nothing, except that ......... oh, the hell with it. Go read the opinion.

[Walt Starr]

7. I've read it, you're wrong. End of message.

[ThomWV]

5. No

But the Congress could pass a law to either over ride the one ruled on or to replace it with one different.

[Walt Starr]

6. This decision is loved by all corporatists

It gives corporations the powers of the state and allows them to pay pennies on the dollar instead of competing in the marketplace and paying a fair price.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. Go find me the exact language in the decision that allows that

Since you speak with such authority, you should be able to easily provide that information.

[Walt Starr]

12. It's really pretty simple

The corporation tells the city councilmen they want to build at site X owned by regular people, after donating to their campaigns which is 100% legal. City councilmen hold meeting announcing they are investigating the possibility and the values of the homes drop because, naturally, buyers don't want to buy in an area which may be sold to the corporation within a short time under "eminent domain" for what is decided by the city council to be "fair market value".

So let's say that originally, each lot was valued at $200,000 (for the sake of argument). Now after the first meeting, that value has dropped to $150,000. By the time all the debate and wrangling over the issue is over and the resolution of the council is passed, the lot is now valued at $100,000. City says fair market value is now $80,000, seizes the land, and hands it over to the corporation, who just pays 40 cents on the dollar from the moment they started this process.

And this entire process has a SCOTUS seal of approval because they simply state that the tax base will increase so it is for the public good and in the public interest.

And why is this possible? The ruling has no test to determine if real property is being transferred from A to B for the enrichment of B.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

8. By that reasoning,

where was everyone when poor people were having their homes taken away from them via eminent domain as dictated by Federal rules?

In fact, what are people doing about restoring the land we took from the Native Americans?

It's all procedure. That's all. It's all procedure, and people don't grasp that, I think. Nothing has changed. Localities will now have sovereignty over their eminent domain decisions. That's all.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. Now now...we need parks and freeway ramps..who needs jobs?

:sarcasm:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

11. Oh, them

We need nice faux-Victorian rowhouses lining the streets of my town where the grandchildren of slaves lived. We need that sort of gentrification and we need to make sure those tenants - oh, yeah, they didn't own the houses in which they lived their whole lives - were moved to a nice "development" north of our fair town, where they could live together and wouldn't be bothered by all the foot traffic in their old 'hood, which is now quite the touristy destination.

All of this took place thirty years ago in my town.

As if this is all new. I love the outrage.