Saturday, June 25, 2005

Money, money, money, monnnnney

Now we know what drives the liberals on the Supreme Court: more tax revenue. Screw you if you don't generate enough tax dollars. You mean nothing. Less than nothing. You are no better than the piece of debris standing in the way of their pristine, tax-generating paradise. Well, at least we have been shown their true colors. I laugh now when being told that liberals are for the "little guys." Hah!

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including – but by no means limited to – new jobs and increased tax revenue." (emphasis added)

Consider this exchange between Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor and Wesley W. Horton, Scalia and O'Connor are trying to understand New London's position regarding the justification of taking the land from the homeowners.

Scalia asked the lead attorney for New London, Wesley W. Horton, whether it would be "OK to take property from people who are paying less taxes and give it to people who are paying more taxes."
"That would be a public use, wouldn't it?" he said.
Before Horton could answer, O'Conner broke in.
O'CONNOR: For example, Motel 6 and the city thinks, well, if we had a Ritz-Carlton, we would have higher taxes. Now, is that okay?
HORTON: Yes, Your Honor. That would be okay. ...

SCALIA: Let me qualify it. You can take from A to give to B if B pays more taxes?
HORTON: If it's a significant amount. Obviously, there is a cost –
SCALIA: I'll accept that. You can take from A and give to B if B pays significantly more taxes.
HORTON: With that –
JUSTICE SCALIA: You accept that as a proposition?
HORTON: I do, Your Honor.

Remember that, by ruling in favor of New London, they (Souter, Gingsberg, Breyer, Kennedy and Stevens) are agreeing with Horton's reverse Robin Hood position: steal from the poor to give to the rich, that is if it means more money for the government.

Very interesting and telling. The most frustrating thing about this is that we, as a public, have no way of "punishing" these justices. Before you start screaming that I am advocating any type of violence, what I mean is that unlike our Representatives, Senators, Governors, President, etc., we cannot vote them out. They are there for life. Now do you understand why there has been such an outcry for Justices who want to preserve our Constitution? I guess all we can do now is hope and pray that our property is never enticing to some slick mini-mall developer.

The above exerpts are from this article posted at WorldNetDaily