As far as I can see almost no one likes this, left or right. I hate it. 

 That's a load of crap Chris...

The print leaders of the left have this to say:

NY Times approves of it: http://nytimes.com/2005/06/24/opinion/24fri1.html

It says this decision is "a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest."

and concludes that "many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs"

The LA TIMES has NO editorials about this subject today

The Washington Post editorial says this "the court's decision was correct."

The

Since champy has been championing huffingtonpost.com lately, I went there looking for her outrage on this. All she wants to talk about is Karl Rove.

well, see, I don't fall into the left or right trap of ignoring news that may look my "camp" look harmful. Too many news sites do that - left and right. People should realize this isn't about left or right, but about us and our government, and those who seek to knock down our standing in the face of government and business.

So, if you want someone on the left that doesn't like this ruling Toot, here I am. You can quote my editorial. heh

I saw yours and poonannypie 's and other's sites and I knew that there are some on "the left" that don't agree...

but the MainStreamMedia left seem to be for it.

i'm not surprised just dismayed...

I'm not talking about the corporate media. I'm talking about people I know in real life. 

You still read the crap these 'media establishments' vomit on us daily, Toot?  Yu're trying to divide again, making this a partisan issue when it is CLEAR all Dems are OUTRAGED. I'm talking the people, not the media or those 'liberals' at the top.

THIS is the true left talking:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1575546&mesg_id=1575546

i know you disagree with the ruling as well as other mindsayers that I usually disagree with politically.

I know you say that we shouldn't try to divide on this issue but then you send me a website in which the second post is about blaming the republicans.

i am not blaming anyone.  I'm simply saying that those with a leftist philosophy (at least those on the top) are for this ruling. 

We'll see what the politicians have to say (if they have the balls to talk out)

the SCOTUS justices on the left made their voice heard loud and clear.  The are giving government the right to do what they which.  That's socialism in my book.

What is socialist about cloaking a ruling that is clearly in favor of private corporations? 

it's not about private corporations...

it's about governments' ability to control every inch of land.  It's about the government saying that your land is our land all the time.  Whether we want your house and lot for a mayor's mistress' house or we want your corporations headquarters for city hall.

It's about the government saying that they know what is best for that piece of land.  They know what is best for everyone.

The government has always taken land for public use...roads, libraries,
schools... The twist is that corporations can use local officials to
demand land for private gain; which of course translate into higher
taxes for the local government. 

blaming corporations in this situation is blaming children.

sure those kids are acting up but only because their parent (ie the government) allows them to.

The government will use this not just for tax revenues but also for themselves.

You can't go blaming businesses for exploiting laws that the government put in place for them to exploit.

While we both hate this ruling toot as usual we see it differently. I disagree that this is socialist. If what you mean by that is like communist USSR, I would say that would be something different. That would be a bunch of economic planners grabbing land on behalf of the state while cloaking it in non-sense about the good of the people.
I think what we have here is judges looking out for the interests of big business and using non-sense about tax revenue as justification. This decision is  a victory for big business. When the United States was moving in a truly socialist direction in the 1920's and 30's you didn't see non-sense like this.
I think the gov't is little more than a tool of corporations anymore.
The same people who say the gov't is stealing their money through taxes depend on the gov't to protect their ability to exploit the people who do the real work.

this is NOT a big business decision...this is a GOV'T $$$ decision.

This is a decision to give governments more power.

this is a decision to give governemnts the ability to make more tax revenues!

This is a decision to give gov'ts control over us. 

Big Business is just as screwed.

 The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called "urban renewal" programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful. If ever there were justification for intrusive judicial review of constitutional provisions that protect "discrete and insular minorities," United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938), surely that principle would apply with great force to the powerless groups and individuals the Public Use Clause protects.

but even those on the left that don't like this ruling WON'T cite Thomas because they HATE him.

I'm not a big brain (just an ordinary guy with common sense) but even I can tell that Thomas is the ummm..."shit"

Yeah, maybe not my best choice of words, but still true.

. The democrats and republicans are both little more than corporate tools. I believe it was Emma Goldman who said government is but the shadow of big business. Red or blue, Rep. or Dem, they both have a corporate agenda that does not have my best intersts in mind.
I don't even read the mainstream media anymore. The closest I come is the BBC headlines on my yahoo. Other than that I only turn to independent media sites.

Hm same as me, Chris.  The BBC and indies...I read the mainstream media just to find out how they spin the stories.

it's important to read the MSM as you said to see how they'll spin the stories

that SPIN will be how 85% of Americans will figure out the news.

It's quite important. 

We just can't dismiss it even if we want.

When the NY TImes writes something, this info will be thrown into 90% of newspapers around the country

I already posted on this yesterday. The founding fathers of this country are spinning in their graves. The whole thing reeks of payoff to me.
What about the petitioners, who have lived in their houses for decades--one of them nearly 100 years??!!  Their houses have long been paid for. No way are these people going to get what their land is really worth. Now they  are going to have to house hunt and spend money they probably don't even have to find someplace just to live. NOT FAIR!! I daresay the verdict would have been different had the home of one of the justices been one of those that would be taken by this corporation...
Now that these homeowners have lost their case in the highest court in the land, do they have to take whatever they're offered for their homes and land? Will it be enough for them to find another house?

these 'land grabs' will be used to justify everything.

baseball stadiums, malls, a senator's house, a mayor's mistress' house...

I believe in a state or town or city's right to acquire land for development.

And the government to take everything a person has.

I mean hell- they try to tax the hell out of people in high income brackets like me , stealing my hard earned money to pay for programs I don't believe in or support- they should be able to steal property from the poor to further their own bloody projects too...  It evens things out...

cheeky!

Eminent Domain has far surpassed its original intent. No longer is private property just seized for road construction and public utilities. Local governments have lately been condemning private citizens from their property just for tax purposes and political or economic gain. Legal cases are springing up all over the nation in which local governments are taking property away from one private party and giving it to another private or corporate party. In one recent case , a township in Ohio is trying to remove one of its residents through the use of eminent domain. The city wants to level houses in the area to make way for new condominiums, which will bring in more taxes. One retired couple is putting up a legal fight against the township and the matter will go before the courts.

Lately however, the justice system has been in favor of eminent domain and its use to take property from one citizen, and give it to another. Most home owners would look at these acts as injustices against private property and individual rights protected by the constitution. Is there such a thing as private property in the US or does the government really own everything like in a communist society? Do you own your property or does the government? These are two questions that point straight at the heart of the eminent domain abuse issue.

 

anti-eminent domain t-shirts at thinkertees.com