This is pretty funny

[Oracle]

Irony?

http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html

[SineSwiper]

Uhhh...that's certainly unconstitutional. Article 5, to be exact.

[Kupek]

That's the point. From <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... html">this WP</a> article:

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

[Nev]

How socialistic of us...

[SineSwiper]

Socialistic to take away one's property and give it to a capitalistic venture?

[Nev]

Point. How...um...sheesh. I dunno even what the word for that would be. Sociocapitalistic of us.

[SineSwiper]

Sociocapitalistic sounds like an oxymoron. Let's just say "corruptly capitalistic" and leave it at that.

[Zeus]

I like it. If someone's going to come up with a law like that, use it to screw them in unimaginable ways.

[Nev]

Well I don't think it's an absolutely horrible idea...but you can piss off people REALLY easy doing that. Were I a city official, I wouldn't want to use that unless I felt like I had one hell of a good reason.

[Tortolia]

Congress is pissed about the ruling anyway.

[SineSwiper]

<i>House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) criticized the measure. "When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," she told reporters. "This is in violation of the respect of separation of powers in our Constitution."</i>

Jesus, just fuck off and die! Goddamn Democrats can't be bi-partian if they tried, even when the Republicans are right for once. Besides, the Supreme Court has been making some fuckheaded judgments lately.