quote:

---

>
> "Mitch_A" <naman@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:GRNue.32747$J12.25375@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Those who wish that the "Cons and the Libs" should join in some common
> cause should first examine what causes the "Cons and Libs" fought for the
> last time they came togeather. I assume that folks here remember "McCain
> Feingold" H.R. 2356, the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.", are
> aware of its provisions, observed its results in campaign 2004. These and
> other such "Bipartisan" actions seem to show that both the "Cons and the
> Libs" fight for increased government power and squable with each other
> only about which party should wield that power. Both parties are for
> Kingdom but argue over who should wear the crown. Individual rights will
> be protected by neither.
>
> Five out of nine on our own Supreme Court are appearently in full
> agreement with the collectivists attitude that tthe individual person may
> be siezed, stripped, cooked and served up as a meal to be eaten by the
> commons.
>
> Yesterday, 23 June, the Supreme Court decided in "Kelo et al, v. City of
> New London et al." that privately owned property may be condemned and
> siezed by politicians then handed over to other private interests for the
> benefit and enrichment of the other private interest as long as there can
> be demonstrated some "public benefit" resulting from the siezure. The
> defination of "public benefit" being anything and everything the local
> politicians want it to be as the Supreme Court placed no restrictins
> whatever on what properties local politicians may sieze, why they may
> sieze them or who the politicians may ultimately turn the properties
> siezed over to:
>
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...000/04-108.html
>
> In effect, true ownership of the land has been transfered from deed
> holders to local mayors and city councles for it is THEY and NOT the deed
> holder who decides whether or not a property will be bought or sold. A
> decision that, thanks to the Supreme Court, may now be made based on some
> vague promise from the politicians that the public will "benefit".
>
>
>
> Majority:
> Stevens, Republican, Nominated by Ford
> Souter, Republican, Nominated by Bush 41
> Kennedy, Republican, Nominated by Reagan
> Breyer, Democrat, Nominated by Clinton
> Ginsburg, Democrat, Nominated by Clinton
>
> Dissenting:
> Rehnquist, Republican, Nominated by Reagan
> Scalia, Republican, Nominated by Reagan
> Thomas, Rebublican, Nominated by Bush 41
> O'Connor, Republican, Nominated by Reagan
>
>
>
>
>
>