Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
NO. 11 FAILURE
Donald Trump’s Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House
By David Boaz
This article appeared in The Guardian on August 19, 2015.
Since he shot to the top of the presidential polls, Donald Trump’s serial bankruptcies and bullying nature have made big headlines. But no one seems to have brought up a bullying business practice he’s particularly fond of: eminent domain.
The billionaire mogul-turned-reality TV celebrity, who says he wants to work on behalf of “the silent majority,” has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.
For more than 30 years Vera Coking lived in a three-story house just off the Boardwalk in Atlantic City. Donald Trump built his 22-story Trump Plaza next door. In the mid-1990s Trump wanted to build a limousine parking lot for the hotel, so he bought several nearby properties. But three owners, including the by then elderly and widowed Ms Coking, refused to sell.
As his daughter Ivanka said in introducing him at his campaign announcement, Donald Trump doesn’t take no for an answer.
Trump turned to a government agency — the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) — to take Coking’s property. CRDA offeredher $250,000 for the property — one-fourth of what another hotel builder had offered her a decade earlier. When she turned that down, the agency went into court to claim her property under eminent domain so that Trump could pave it and put up a parking lot.
“Trump has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.”
Peter Banin and his brother owned another building on the block. A few months after they paid $500,000 to purchase the building for a pawn shop, CRDA offered them $174,000 and told them to leave the property. A Russian immigrant, Banin said: “I knew they could do this in Russia, but not here. I would understand if they needed it for an airport runway, but for a casino?”
Ms Coking and her neighbors spent several years in court, but eventually with the assistance of the Institute for Justice they won on July 20, 1998. A state judge rejected the agency’s demand on the narrow grounds that there was no guarantee that Trump would use the land for the specified purpose. “TRUMPED!” blared the front page of the tabloid New York Post..."
Donald Trump's Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House
This is a PRIME example of the government's abuse of power & TRUMP lead the charge.
So, are you against the use of Eminent Domain for private business purposes?
Of course I'm against it. I don't think I sounded ambiguous. Eminent Domain should only be exercised in the narrowest of ways allowed... such as building a new highway. NEVER to build a private business (New London, Ct / Pfizer) or to expand an existing one (Trump Casino)
NO. 11 FAILURE
Donald Trump’s Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House
By David Boaz
This article appeared in The Guardian on August 19, 2015.
Since he shot to the top of the presidential polls, Donald Trump’s serial bankruptcies and bullying nature have made big headlines. But no one seems to have brought up a bullying business practice he’s particularly fond of: eminent domain.
The billionaire mogul-turned-reality TV celebrity, who says he wants to work on behalf of “the silent majority,” has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.
For more than 30 years Vera Coking lived in a three-story house just off the Boardwalk in Atlantic City. Donald Trump built his 22-story Trump Plaza next door. In the mid-1990s Trump wanted to build a limousine parking lot for the hotel, so he bought several nearby properties. But three owners, including the by then elderly and widowed Ms Coking, refused to sell.
As his daughter Ivanka said in introducing him at his campaign announcement, Donald Trump doesn’t take no for an answer.
Trump turned to a government agency — the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) — to take Coking’s property. CRDA offeredher $250,000 for the property — one-fourth of what another hotel builder had offered her a decade earlier. When she turned that down, the agency went into court to claim her property under eminent domain so that Trump could pave it and put up a parking lot.
“Trump has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.”
Peter Banin and his brother owned another building on the block. A few months after they paid $500,000 to purchase the building for a pawn shop, CRDA offered them $174,000 and told them to leave the property. A Russian immigrant, Banin said: “I knew they could do this in Russia, but not here. I would understand if they needed it for an airport runway, but for a casino?”
Ms Coking and her neighbors spent several years in court, but eventually with the assistance of the Institute for Justice they won on July 20, 1998. A state judge rejected the agency’s demand on the narrow grounds that there was no guarantee that Trump would use the land for the specified purpose. “TRUMPED!” blared the front page of the tabloid New York Post..."
Donald Trump's Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House
This is a PRIME example of the government's abuse of power & TRUMP lead the charge.
So, are you against the use of Eminent Domain for private business purposes?
Of course I'm against it. I don't think I sounded ambiguous. Eminent Domain should only be exercised in the narrowest of ways allowed... such as building a new highway. NEVER to build a private business (New London, Ct / Pfizer) or to expand an existing one (Trump Casino)
So far from the truth it is laughableNO. 11 FAILURE
Donald Trump’s Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House
By David Boaz
This article appeared in The Guardian on August 19, 2015.
Since he shot to the top of the presidential polls, Donald Trump’s serial bankruptcies and bullying nature have made big headlines. But no one seems to have brought up a bullying business practice he’s particularly fond of: eminent domain.
The billionaire mogul-turned-reality TV celebrity, who says he wants to work on behalf of “the silent majority,” has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.
For more than 30 years Vera Coking lived in a three-story house just off the Boardwalk in Atlantic City. Donald Trump built his 22-story Trump Plaza next door. In the mid-1990s Trump wanted to build a limousine parking lot for the hotel, so he bought several nearby properties. But three owners, including the by then elderly and widowed Ms Coking, refused to sell.
As his daughter Ivanka said in introducing him at his campaign announcement, Donald Trump doesn’t take no for an answer.
Trump turned to a government agency — the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) — to take Coking’s property. CRDA offeredher $250,000 for the property — one-fourth of what another hotel builder had offered her a decade earlier. When she turned that down, the agency went into court to claim her property under eminent domain so that Trump could pave it and put up a parking lot.
“Trump has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.”
Peter Banin and his brother owned another building on the block. A few months after they paid $500,000 to purchase the building for a pawn shop, CRDA offered them $174,000 and told them to leave the property. A Russian immigrant, Banin said: “I knew they could do this in Russia, but not here. I would understand if they needed it for an airport runway, but for a casino?”
Ms Coking and her neighbors spent several years in court, but eventually with the assistance of the Institute for Justice they won on July 20, 1998. A state judge rejected the agency’s demand on the narrow grounds that there was no guarantee that Trump would use the land for the specified purpose. “TRUMPED!” blared the front page of the tabloid New York Post..."
Donald Trump's Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House
This is a PRIME example of the government's abuse of power & TRUMP lead the charge.
So, are you against the use of Eminent Domain for private business purposes?
Of course I'm against it. I don't think I sounded ambiguous. Eminent Domain should only be exercised in the narrowest of ways allowed... such as building a new highway. NEVER to build a private business (New London, Ct / Pfizer) or to expand an existing one (Trump Casino)
Does it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?
NO. 11 FAILURE
Donald Trump’s Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House
By David Boaz
This article appeared in The Guardian on August 19, 2015.
Since he shot to the top of the presidential polls, Donald Trump’s serial bankruptcies and bullying nature have made big headlines. But no one seems to have brought up a bullying business practice he’s particularly fond of: eminent domain.
The billionaire mogul-turned-reality TV celebrity, who says he wants to work on behalf of “the silent majority,” has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.
For more than 30 years Vera Coking lived in a three-story house just off the Boardwalk in Atlantic City. Donald Trump built his 22-story Trump Plaza next door. In the mid-1990s Trump wanted to build a limousine parking lot for the hotel, so he bought several nearby properties. But three owners, including the by then elderly and widowed Ms Coking, refused to sell.
As his daughter Ivanka said in introducing him at his campaign announcement, Donald Trump doesn’t take no for an answer.
Trump turned to a government agency — the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) — to take Coking’s property. CRDA offeredher $250,000 for the property — one-fourth of what another hotel builder had offered her a decade earlier. When she turned that down, the agency went into court to claim her property under eminent domain so that Trump could pave it and put up a parking lot.
“Trump has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.”
Peter Banin and his brother owned another building on the block. A few months after they paid $500,000 to purchase the building for a pawn shop, CRDA offered them $174,000 and told them to leave the property. A Russian immigrant, Banin said: “I knew they could do this in Russia, but not here. I would understand if they needed it for an airport runway, but for a casino?”
Ms Coking and her neighbors spent several years in court, but eventually with the assistance of the Institute for Justice they won on July 20, 1998. A state judge rejected the agency’s demand on the narrow grounds that there was no guarantee that Trump would use the land for the specified purpose. “TRUMPED!” blared the front page of the tabloid New York Post..."
Donald Trump's Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House
This is a PRIME example of the government's abuse of power & TRUMP lead the charge.
So, are you against the use of Eminent Domain for private business purposes?
Of course I'm against it. I don't think I sounded ambiguous. Eminent Domain should only be exercised in the narrowest of ways allowed... such as building a new highway. NEVER to build a private business (New London, Ct / Pfizer) or to expand an existing one (Trump Casino)
Does it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?
So far from the truth it is laughableNO. 11 FAILURE
Donald Trump’s Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House
By David Boaz
This article appeared in The Guardian on August 19, 2015.
Since he shot to the top of the presidential polls, Donald Trump’s serial bankruptcies and bullying nature have made big headlines. But no one seems to have brought up a bullying business practice he’s particularly fond of: eminent domain.
The billionaire mogul-turned-reality TV celebrity, who says he wants to work on behalf of “the silent majority,” has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.
For more than 30 years Vera Coking lived in a three-story house just off the Boardwalk in Atlantic City. Donald Trump built his 22-story Trump Plaza next door. In the mid-1990s Trump wanted to build a limousine parking lot for the hotel, so he bought several nearby properties. But three owners, including the by then elderly and widowed Ms Coking, refused to sell.
As his daughter Ivanka said in introducing him at his campaign announcement, Donald Trump doesn’t take no for an answer.
Trump turned to a government agency — the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) — to take Coking’s property. CRDA offeredher $250,000 for the property — one-fourth of what another hotel builder had offered her a decade earlier. When she turned that down, the agency went into court to claim her property under eminent domain so that Trump could pave it and put up a parking lot.
“Trump has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.”
Peter Banin and his brother owned another building on the block. A few months after they paid $500,000 to purchase the building for a pawn shop, CRDA offered them $174,000 and told them to leave the property. A Russian immigrant, Banin said: “I knew they could do this in Russia, but not here. I would understand if they needed it for an airport runway, but for a casino?”
Ms Coking and her neighbors spent several years in court, but eventually with the assistance of the Institute for Justice they won on July 20, 1998. A state judge rejected the agency’s demand on the narrow grounds that there was no guarantee that Trump would use the land for the specified purpose. “TRUMPED!” blared the front page of the tabloid New York Post..."
Donald Trump's Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House
This is a PRIME example of the government's abuse of power & TRUMP lead the charge.
So, are you against the use of Eminent Domain for private business purposes?
Of course I'm against it. I don't think I sounded ambiguous. Eminent Domain should only be exercised in the narrowest of ways allowed... such as building a new highway. NEVER to build a private business (New London, Ct / Pfizer) or to expand an existing one (Trump Casino)
Does it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?
So far from the truth it is laughableNO. 11 FAILURE
Donald Trump’s Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House
By David Boaz
This article appeared in The Guardian on August 19, 2015.
Since he shot to the top of the presidential polls, Donald Trump’s serial bankruptcies and bullying nature have made big headlines. But no one seems to have brought up a bullying business practice he’s particularly fond of: eminent domain.
The billionaire mogul-turned-reality TV celebrity, who says he wants to work on behalf of “the silent majority,” has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.
For more than 30 years Vera Coking lived in a three-story house just off the Boardwalk in Atlantic City. Donald Trump built his 22-story Trump Plaza next door. In the mid-1990s Trump wanted to build a limousine parking lot for the hotel, so he bought several nearby properties. But three owners, including the by then elderly and widowed Ms Coking, refused to sell.
As his daughter Ivanka said in introducing him at his campaign announcement, Donald Trump doesn’t take no for an answer.
Trump turned to a government agency — the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) — to take Coking’s property. CRDA offeredher $250,000 for the property — one-fourth of what another hotel builder had offered her a decade earlier. When she turned that down, the agency went into court to claim her property under eminent domain so that Trump could pave it and put up a parking lot.
“Trump has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.”
Peter Banin and his brother owned another building on the block. A few months after they paid $500,000 to purchase the building for a pawn shop, CRDA offered them $174,000 and told them to leave the property. A Russian immigrant, Banin said: “I knew they could do this in Russia, but not here. I would understand if they needed it for an airport runway, but for a casino?”
Ms Coking and her neighbors spent several years in court, but eventually with the assistance of the Institute for Justice they won on July 20, 1998. A state judge rejected the agency’s demand on the narrow grounds that there was no guarantee that Trump would use the land for the specified purpose. “TRUMPED!” blared the front page of the tabloid New York Post..."
Donald Trump's Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House
This is a PRIME example of the government's abuse of power & TRUMP lead the charge.
So, are you against the use of Eminent Domain for private business purposes?
Of course I'm against it. I don't think I sounded ambiguous. Eminent Domain should only be exercised in the narrowest of ways allowed... such as building a new highway. NEVER to build a private business (New London, Ct / Pfizer) or to expand an existing one (Trump Casino)
Does it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.
So far from the truth it is laughableSo, are you against the use of Eminent Domain for private business purposes?
Of course I'm against it. I don't think I sounded ambiguous. Eminent Domain should only be exercised in the narrowest of ways allowed... such as building a new highway. NEVER to build a private business (New London, Ct / Pfizer) or to expand an existing one (Trump Casino)
Does it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.
That was a horrible, horrible ruling. It doesn't bother me about who appointed them- it bothers me that they made such a bad ruling- as bad as Citizen's United in my opinion.
Justices who voted for the decision:
David Souter- appointed by GHW Bush R
Anthony Kennedy- appointed by Reagan R
John Paul Stevens- appointed by Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- appointed by Clinton
Stephan Breyer- appointed by Clinton
Does it both you that the majority of Justices were appointed by Republicans- since you brought the subject up?
So far from the truth it is laughableNO. 11 FAILURE
Donald Trump’s Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House
By David Boaz
This article appeared in The Guardian on August 19, 2015.
Since he shot to the top of the presidential polls, Donald Trump’s serial bankruptcies and bullying nature have made big headlines. But no one seems to have brought up a bullying business practice he’s particularly fond of: eminent domain.
The billionaire mogul-turned-reality TV celebrity, who says he wants to work on behalf of “the silent majority,” has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.
For more than 30 years Vera Coking lived in a three-story house just off the Boardwalk in Atlantic City. Donald Trump built his 22-story Trump Plaza next door. In the mid-1990s Trump wanted to build a limousine parking lot for the hotel, so he bought several nearby properties. But three owners, including the by then elderly and widowed Ms Coking, refused to sell.
As his daughter Ivanka said in introducing him at his campaign announcement, Donald Trump doesn’t take no for an answer.
Trump turned to a government agency — the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) — to take Coking’s property. CRDA offeredher $250,000 for the property — one-fourth of what another hotel builder had offered her a decade earlier. When she turned that down, the agency went into court to claim her property under eminent domain so that Trump could pave it and put up a parking lot.
“Trump has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.”
Peter Banin and his brother owned another building on the block. A few months after they paid $500,000 to purchase the building for a pawn shop, CRDA offered them $174,000 and told them to leave the property. A Russian immigrant, Banin said: “I knew they could do this in Russia, but not here. I would understand if they needed it for an airport runway, but for a casino?”
Ms Coking and her neighbors spent several years in court, but eventually with the assistance of the Institute for Justice they won on July 20, 1998. A state judge rejected the agency’s demand on the narrow grounds that there was no guarantee that Trump would use the land for the specified purpose. “TRUMPED!” blared the front page of the tabloid New York Post..."
Donald Trump's Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House
This is a PRIME example of the government's abuse of power & TRUMP lead the charge.
So, are you against the use of Eminent Domain for private business purposes?
Of course I'm against it. I don't think I sounded ambiguous. Eminent Domain should only be exercised in the narrowest of ways allowed... such as building a new highway. NEVER to build a private business (New London, Ct / Pfizer) or to expand an existing one (Trump Casino)
Does it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.
So far from the truth it is laughableOf course I'm against it. I don't think I sounded ambiguous. Eminent Domain should only be exercised in the narrowest of ways allowed... such as building a new highway. NEVER to build a private business (New London, Ct / Pfizer) or to expand an existing one (Trump Casino)
Does it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.
That was a horrible, horrible ruling. It doesn't bother me about who appointed them- it bothers me that they made such a bad ruling- as bad as Citizen's United in my opinion.
Justices who voted for the decision:
David Souter- appointed by GHW Bush R
Anthony Kennedy- appointed by Reagan R
John Paul Stevens- appointed by Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- appointed by Clinton
Stephan Breyer- appointed by Clinton
Does it both you that the majority of Justices were appointed by Republicans- since you brought the subject up?
No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.
In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.
So far from the truth it is laughableOf course I'm against it. I don't think I sounded ambiguous. Eminent Domain should only be exercised in the narrowest of ways allowed... such as building a new highway. NEVER to build a private business (New London, Ct / Pfizer) or to expand an existing one (Trump Casino)
Does it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.
That was a horrible, horrible ruling. It doesn't bother me about who appointed them- it bothers me that they made such a bad ruling- as bad as Citizen's United in my opinion.
Justices who voted for the decision:
David Souter- appointed by GHW Bush R
Anthony Kennedy- appointed by Reagan R
John Paul Stevens- appointed by Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- appointed by Clinton
Stephan Breyer- appointed by Clinton
Does it both you that the majority of Justices were appointed by Republicans- since you brought the subject up?
No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.
In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.
So far from the truth it is laughableDoes it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.
That was a horrible, horrible ruling. It doesn't bother me about who appointed them- it bothers me that they made such a bad ruling- as bad as Citizen's United in my opinion.
Justices who voted for the decision:
David Souter- appointed by GHW Bush R
Anthony Kennedy- appointed by Reagan R
John Paul Stevens- appointed by Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- appointed by Clinton
Stephan Breyer- appointed by Clinton
Does it both you that the majority of Justices were appointed by Republicans- since you brought the subject up?
No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.
In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.
Citizen's United is for corporation rights to have the same equal footing as a living breathing human & has nothing to do with 'speech' & everything to do with buying elections.
So far from the truth it is laughableSo, are you against the use of Eminent Domain for private business purposes?
Of course I'm against it. I don't think I sounded ambiguous. Eminent Domain should only be exercised in the narrowest of ways allowed... such as building a new highway. NEVER to build a private business (New London, Ct / Pfizer) or to expand an existing one (Trump Casino)
Does it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.
A slightly different scenario... it was the City of New London taking a position in favor of Big Corp to claim ownership of land under the guise that Pfizer would generate more tax revenue for the city, thus benefitting the city as a whole & the amt. of revenue from Pfizer would be greater than what the city could get from the individual homeowner. Does that make it any better? Absolutely not... but to equate that as the same as an individual's private business taking land that would only be benefitting that private individual, such as with Trump, is not equal.
So far from the truth it is laughableDoes it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.
That was a horrible, horrible ruling. It doesn't bother me about who appointed them- it bothers me that they made such a bad ruling- as bad as Citizen's United in my opinion.
Justices who voted for the decision:
David Souter- appointed by GHW Bush R
Anthony Kennedy- appointed by Reagan R
John Paul Stevens- appointed by Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- appointed by Clinton
Stephan Breyer- appointed by Clinton
Does it both you that the majority of Justices were appointed by Republicans- since you brought the subject up?
No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.
In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.
Citizen's United is for corporation rights to have the same equal footing as a living breathing human & has nothing to do with 'speech' & everything to do with buying elections.
So far from the truth it is laughable
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.
That was a horrible, horrible ruling. It doesn't bother me about who appointed them- it bothers me that they made such a bad ruling- as bad as Citizen's United in my opinion.
Justices who voted for the decision:
David Souter- appointed by GHW Bush R
Anthony Kennedy- appointed by Reagan R
John Paul Stevens- appointed by Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- appointed by Clinton
Stephan Breyer- appointed by Clinton
Does it both you that the majority of Justices were appointed by Republicans- since you brought the subject up?
No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.
In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.
Citizen's United is for corporation rights to have the same equal footing as a living breathing human & has nothing to do with 'speech' & everything to do with buying elections.
I will believe that Corporations and Unions have the same rights and responsibilities as individuals, when I see the first Corporation put in jail.
I recognize Citizens United is the ruling- but absolutely one that deserves a Constitutional Amendment- my feeling is any 'entity' that can't go to jail for a crime- shouldn't be able to 'donate' to politics.
So far from the truth it is laughableDoes it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.
That was a horrible, horrible ruling. It doesn't bother me about who appointed them- it bothers me that they made such a bad ruling- as bad as Citizen's United in my opinion.
Justices who voted for the decision:
David Souter- appointed by GHW Bush R
Anthony Kennedy- appointed by Reagan R
John Paul Stevens- appointed by Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- appointed by Clinton
Stephan Breyer- appointed by Clinton
Does it both you that the majority of Justices were appointed by Republicans- since you brought the subject up?
No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.
In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.
LOL of course you think that Citizen's United was a good call.
Because you support the right of Citizens and Unions to buy politicians.
Meanwhile- does it bother you that the majority of the Justices who made the decision in New London were appointed by Republican Presidents?
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.
That was a horrible, horrible ruling. It doesn't bother me about who appointed them- it bothers me that they made such a bad ruling- as bad as Citizen's United in my opinion.
Justices who voted for the decision:
David Souter- appointed by GHW Bush R
Anthony Kennedy- appointed by Reagan R
John Paul Stevens- appointed by Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- appointed by Clinton
Stephan Breyer- appointed by Clinton
Does it both you that the majority of Justices were appointed by Republicans- since you brought the subject up?
No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.
In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.
Citizen's United is for corporation rights to have the same equal footing as a living breathing human & has nothing to do with 'speech' & everything to do with buying elections.
I will believe that Corporations and Unions have the same rights and responsibilities as individuals, when I see the first Corporation put in jail.
I recognize Citizens United is the ruling- but absolutely one that deserves a Constitutional Amendment- my feeling is any 'entity' that can't go to jail for a crime- shouldn't be able to 'donate' to politics.
The Shield of Corporation is abused, IMO, to protect high level corporate decision makers from the legal repercussions of their criminal decisions.
But that is a separate matter from the Government having any need to suppress speech it does not want out there, even if the bill is being paid by a corporation.
So far from the truth it is laughable
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.
That was a horrible, horrible ruling. It doesn't bother me about who appointed them- it bothers me that they made such a bad ruling- as bad as Citizen's United in my opinion.
Justices who voted for the decision:
David Souter- appointed by GHW Bush R
Anthony Kennedy- appointed by Reagan R
John Paul Stevens- appointed by Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- appointed by Clinton
Stephan Breyer- appointed by Clinton
Does it both you that the majority of Justices were appointed by Republicans- since you brought the subject up?
No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.
In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.
LOL of course you think that Citizen's United was a good call.
Because you support the right of Citizens and Unions to buy politicians.
Meanwhile- does it bother you that the majority of the Justices who made the decision in New London were appointed by Republican Presidents?
All but one of those REpublican appointed Justices voted against that ruling.
THe majority was Republican appointed, but the Democratically appointed minority won that day.
Thanks to Kennedy.
It bothers me that a Republican Appointed Judge would vote for such a ruling.
It does not bother me that most of them were against it.
DOes it bother you that ALL the democratically appointed Justices voted for it?
That was a horrible, horrible ruling. It doesn't bother me about who appointed them- it bothers me that they made such a bad ruling- as bad as Citizen's United in my opinion.
Justices who voted for the decision:
David Souter- appointed by GHW Bush R
Anthony Kennedy- appointed by Reagan R
John Paul Stevens- appointed by Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- appointed by Clinton
Stephan Breyer- appointed by Clinton
Does it both you that the majority of Justices were appointed by Republicans- since you brought the subject up?
No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.
In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.
Citizen's United is for corporation rights to have the same equal footing as a living breathing human & has nothing to do with 'speech' & everything to do with buying elections.
I will believe that Corporations and Unions have the same rights and responsibilities as individuals, when I see the first Corporation put in jail.
I recognize Citizens United is the ruling- but absolutely one that deserves a Constitutional Amendment- my feeling is any 'entity' that can't go to jail for a crime- shouldn't be able to 'donate' to politics.
The Shield of Corporation is abused, IMO, to protect high level corporate decision makers from the legal repercussions of their criminal decisions.
But that is a separate matter from the Government having any need to suppress speech it does not want out there, even if the bill is being paid by a corporation.
Every individual stockholder in a Corporation has every right to express him or herself- and to spend his or her money doing so.
Corporations are not people- or at least they should not be treated as people- we do not allow Corporations to vote- nor should we allow them to pay to influence elections. Individuals can vote- and individuals can express themselves quite fine- and if individuals break the law they can go to jail for doing so.
But corporations can't.
No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.
In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.
Citizen's United is for corporation rights to have the same equal footing as a living breathing human & has nothing to do with 'speech' & everything to do with buying elections.
I will believe that Corporations and Unions have the same rights and responsibilities as individuals, when I see the first Corporation put in jail.
I recognize Citizens United is the ruling- but absolutely one that deserves a Constitutional Amendment- my feeling is any 'entity' that can't go to jail for a crime- shouldn't be able to 'donate' to politics.
The Shield of Corporation is abused, IMO, to protect high level corporate decision makers from the legal repercussions of their criminal decisions.
But that is a separate matter from the Government having any need to suppress speech it does not want out there, even if the bill is being paid by a corporation.
Every individual stockholder in a Corporation has every right to express him or herself- and to spend his or her money doing so.
Corporations are not people- or at least they should not be treated as people- we do not allow Corporations to vote- nor should we allow them to pay to influence elections. Individuals can vote- and individuals can express themselves quite fine- and if individuals break the law they can go to jail for doing so.
But corporations can't.
Going to jail is not some special function required to be an individual.
Corporate Personhood is a legal fiction designed for a number of reasons.
Your focus on it not being a real person is irrelevant.
That in no way supports your position that allowing Corporations free speech is wrong.
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.
That was a horrible, horrible ruling. It doesn't bother me about who appointed them- it bothers me that they made such a bad ruling- as bad as Citizen's United in my opinion.
Justices who voted for the decision:
David Souter- appointed by GHW Bush R
Anthony Kennedy- appointed by Reagan R
John Paul Stevens- appointed by Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- appointed by Clinton
Stephan Breyer- appointed by Clinton
Does it both you that the majority of Justices were appointed by Republicans- since you brought the subject up?
No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.
In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.
LOL of course you think that Citizen's United was a good call.
Because you support the right of Citizens and Unions to buy politicians.
Meanwhile- does it bother you that the majority of the Justices who made the decision in New London were appointed by Republican Presidents?
All but one of those REpublican appointed Justices voted against that ruling.
THe majority was Republican appointed, but the Democratically appointed minority won that day.
Thanks to Kennedy.
It bothers me that a Republican Appointed Judge would vote for such a ruling.
It does not bother me that most of them were against it.
DOes it bother you that ALL the democratically appointed Justices voted for it?
I said from my first response that it doesn't bother me who appointed any of them.
You were the one who felt it so important that you brought the party affiliation of the President who appointed them up-- claiming incorrectly that the majority were appointed by Democrats.
I disagree with the ruling- not the Republican Party because the majority of the justices who voted for the decision were appointed by Republicans or because the minority of justices who voted for it were appointed by Democrats- but because the decision was a bad decision.
Just as I disagree with Citizen's United not because of which Justices voted for it- but because it was a bad decision.
