Property can be taken for development-Supreme Court

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Property can be taken for development-Supreme Court
Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:02 AM ET
Printer Friendly | Email Article | Reprints | RSS

Top News
Israel targets Islamic Jihad before talks
Anti-Syrian politician assassinated in Beirut
Bush to discuss rights, trade with Vietnam's Khai
MORE


By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a city can take a person's home for a development project aimed at revitalizing a depressed local economy, a decision that could have nationwide impact.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld a ruling that New London, Connecticut, can seize the homes and businesses owned by seven families for a development project that will complement a nearby research facility by the Pfizer Inc. drug company.

Under the U.S. Constitution, governments can take private property through their so-called eminent domain powers in exchange for just compensation, but only when it is for public use.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court majority that the city's proposed disposition of the property at issue qualified as a "public use" under the Constitution.

He said the city's determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation was entitled to deference.

The decision affecting individual property rights could have broad impact. The issue has arisen across the nation as cities have sought new ways to promote growth and create jobs in depressed areas.

The Supreme Court's last major ruling on using eminent domain for private development was in 1954, when it upheld the taking of property to eliminate slums or blight after finding that such condemnations constituted a public use.

The decision was a victory for New London, which argued that because the development will create jobs, increase tax revenues and help the local economy, it satisfied the Constitution's public-use requirement.

The residents opposed the plans to raze their homes and businesses to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. They argued that it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property.

Stevens said the proposal by the families that the court adopt a bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic.

He said promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted government function.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

What happened tothe constitution? Dosent it count anymore? Another horrible decision by these folks.

[Proletariat]

You know when I read the headline, my reaction was, "Oh great, another thing for liberals to bash Republicans over the head with." Then I read the article and find that it's the three liberals and two traitors who formed the majority.

I am flabbergasted. This should have been a 9-0 decision against.

Not surprising, however, when you read the majority opinion, the logic. It basically boils down to, "Government knows best." A classic American left-liberal position.

[Proletariat]

This is really an outrage, the more I think about it. I can't wait to read O'Conner's dissent. Apparently it's scathing.

Are those 5 idiots so dense as to not see what the implications of such a decision are? Why did they bother to take an oath to uphold the constitution when they took office?

Bush needs to appoint another Scalia-like justice to the bench, regardless of how much Democrats in the senate will bitch and moan about it. Otherwise, we'll continue to see more horrible decisions like this one.

:furious3::furious3::furious3:

[Kaiser of Arabia]

The Supreme court should be charged with treason and the whole damned lot of them shot.
And that's my final answer.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Oh, and Gawain, I thought you knew. The Supreme Court is God in America! They're higher then the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the god-damned people of America, that Patriot Missile over there, the US Military, The State of Nebraska, and the Christian Churches! Bloody leftist/traitorous pigs that they are.

[doc_bean]

Ah we have similar laws, you're all screwed, seriously.

I watched C-span yesterday (yes, bored) where a Representative (yes, a democrat) tried to argue against a constitutional amendment (the flag burning) on the grounds that it would go against the Supreme Court, now i'm not an American, but even I felt like shouting 'That's the whole point, Congress is the highest political actor !'

It also seems that almost all debated decisions are taken 5-4, would it be unreasonable to ask a 6-3 majority before a verdict becomes valid ? Can't there be a 'the Supreme Court is undecided' verdict that would require additional regulation by Congress ?

[Ser Clegane]

The Supreme court should be charged with treason and the whole damned lot of them shot.
And that's my final answer.

I have the feeling that "they should all get shot" is your default solution for pretty much every problem (or what you consider to be a problem). :rolleyes:

[xemitg]

This is an interesting ruling and I personally think we don't know the rational behind it from that sparse article. The article wasn't very detailed. Perhaps the homes being seized are slums. However, I don't like this ruling one bit.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I have the feeling that "they should all get shot" is your default solution for pretty much every problem (or what you consider to be a problem). :rolleyes:
Pretty much, Clegane, pretty much. Though I do advocate beheading and public disemboweling for certain things ~;)

[Tribesman]

The Supreme court should be charged with treason and the whole damned lot of them shot.
So you want to shoot the Judiciary Capo , isn't that treason ~D

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I never said that I personally wanted to do it, merely that in the situation described above that they are guilty of Treason to the United States Constitution and therefore should be shot alongside all traitors. That's all. God I hope the CIA doesn't see this. ~:) On a more serious note, maybe not shoot them, but sure as hell get rid of the treasonous bastards.

[discovery1]

I am not at all happy about this. Yet more trampling of indivdual rights.




I watched C-span yesterday (yes, bored) where a Representative (yes, a democrat) tried to argue against a constitutional amendment (the flag burning) on the grounds that it would go against the Supreme Court, now i'm not an American, but even I felt like shouting 'That's the whole point, Congress is the highest political actor !'

You are kidding right?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What part of the 5th amendment dont they understand?


Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons

Amendment Text | Annotations

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It seems now that taking your private property and giving it to another private individual can be seen as for public use if they clain it WILL increase tax revenues. If this is so then all churches are in trouble since they pay no property tax the government could simply take their property and put up a mall. This is really stretching the meaning of public use.

[Goofball]

This appears to be a very bad decision. What is unclear to me is, who will own this new development project? If it is a private company or individual, then this decision seems to be a step back towards the robber-baron era, where the big money boys could pretty much take away whatever they want from little people with impunity.

Having said that, I have no problem with governments excercising the right of eminent domain to build things such as highways, power plants or prisons. But when governments start confiscating poor peoples' homes to give them to big companies, we are entering dark times indeed.

One thing I would point out: Those of you (the usual suspects) who are screaming about liberalism being to blame for this are way off base. If anything, government action that favors big business (assuming, again, that a private company(ies) will be the beneficial owners of this development) at the expense of the little guy is a more common Republican/Capitalist theme. So lighten up on the rhetoric a bit.

[doc_bean]

You are kidding right?

I'll assume you're not making fun of me and asking about what happened in the House. Yes, it happened, the man was worried about going against the Supreme Court (he did have other, more valid points). The (kinda) funny thing was that he was black (he brought the black thing up, something about the civil rights movement and Brown vs The Board of Education) and as someone correctly pointed out, an amendment had been passed before (partly) in order to revoke a decision of the Supreme Court, namely the 13th. I don't think he would have opposed that.

A bit besides the point, I find the proposed amendment rather silly :balloon2:

[Tribesman]

On a more serious note, maybe not shoot them, but sure as hell get rid of the treasonous bastards.
So you want to get rid of some of your government ? Thats still treason Capo ~;)

[doc_bean]

What part of the 5th amendment dont they understand?


Actually this isn't that bad. Contrary to common sense and the 5th amendment the US can start trials against property, and not against the people owning it, denying any proper defense.

Stories about abuse have floated around here before so I'm sure you know about it.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

On a more serious note, maybe not shoot them, but sure as hell get rid of the treasonous bastards.
So you want to get rid of some of your government ? Thats still treason Capo ~;)
Then wanting to get rid of bush via impeachment is treason Tribesman ~:)

[ICantSpellDawg]

This appears to be a very bad decision. What is unclear to me is, who will own this new development project? If it is a private company or individual, then this decision seems to be a step back towards the robber-baron era, where the big money boys could pretty much take away whatever they want from little people with impunity.

Having said that, I have no problem with governments excercising the right of eminent domain to build things such as highways, power plants or prisons. But when governments start confiscating poor peoples' homes to give them to big companies, we are entering dark times indeed.

One thing I would point out: Those of you (the usual suspects) who are screaming about liberalism being to blame for this are way off base. If anything, government action that favors big business (assuming, again, that a private company(ies) will be the beneficial owners of this development) at the expense of the little guy is a more common Republican/Capitalist theme. So lighten up on the rhetoric a bit.


democrats are capitalists too
and, imo, are the worst kind

and it was the more "liberal" judges who voted in favor of this

this is luny - why the hell can a group of 5 people that ive never voted for allow me to be ejected from my home, have it demolished and replaced with a hotel? why cant this go through congress?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Then wanting to get rid of bush via impeachment is treason Tribesman ~:)


tribesman is from ireland
wanting to rid us of bush is simply "not going to happen"
not "treason"

[Red Harvest]

I'm not too impressed by what I see of the ruling. This court is rather "erratic" in its rulings. Taking property out of the hands of one private landowner and putting it in the hands of another through force of local govt. is highly suspect. The greatest tyrannies I've witnessed by govt tend to happen on a local level, and this only expands their power of abuse. (I actually prefer state and federal govt in such matters over local, as they get more scrutiny from more parties and are therefore are less subject to getting away with abuse.)

I have supported local govt efforts to go after absentee landlords that let their property run down, and fail to pay taxes or fines for years or decades. This intentional neglect destroys older neighborhoods and provides focal points for crime. The cities are reluctant to do it though, so the eyesores are often around for far too long. Often the titles are rather messy too. I'm for granting some powers in that area, but with some clear boundaries.

[Xiahou]

Pretty unbelievable stuff. How on earth can you claim that taking property and giving it to a private bussiness is public use?

I wouldn't worry about a constitutional ammendmen against flag desecration- the Supreme Court can just tell us that what the ammendment really does is permit it. :dizzy2:

[Don Corleone]

To those of you in the audience that are always getting on judidical conservatives (limited court, as opposed to political conservatives) are delusional and paranoid, I have to ask what you think about this? Aurelian? This a good thing? Has the Supreme Court abandoned ship on the Constitution and now just making up its own rules as it goes and saying "The Constitution agrees with our ruling because we say it does" ?

[Red Harvest]

To those of you in the audience that are always getting on judidical conservatives (limited court, as opposed to political conservatives) are delusional and paranoid, I have to ask what you think about this? Aurelian? This a good thing? Has the Supreme Court abandoned ship on the Constitution and now just making up its own rules as it goes and saying "The Constitution agrees with our ruling because we say it does" ?

I've always thought that both extremes were bad. Of course I also firmly believe in blocking the more extreme appointments by either party. There is not much room for moderates in either party's apparatus. Much of this is the result of the primary system, by design it plays to the ends, and away from the middle. The political pendulum is slow, but amusing to watch. When I am being called a crazy conservative I figure things have shifted too far to the left. When I am being called liberal, I'm certain things have swung to the right. When folks can't think of an appropriate name to call me...then it is just right. I'll stick with independent and vote my conscience.

[JAG]

Pretty unbelievable stuff. How on earth can you claim that taking property and giving it to a private bussiness is public use?


Agreed, that is never in the public use.

Also I think this highlights the biggest weakness in the US system - even weaker than the sheer weight of money thrown about in nominations and elections - the huge power the unelected - democratically that is - Supreme Court judges have, based on a constitution which is as old as it is vague - well by vague I mean able to be manipulated by the SC.

[Don Corleone]

This has nothing to do with being politically liberal or conservative. The Supreme Court granting itself the right to reinterpet the Constitution to say any it wants, and grant local governments the right to sieze any property they desire is aristocracy. When will America wake up and realize we have in an oligarchy, that we have 9 dictators that make up the law as the go.

If they can claim that creating tax revenue is a public good, in and of itself, they can make any argument any time they want, for any reason they want. A written code means nothing if one week you say statement A means this, and the following week, you say statatement A means that.

Well, guys, 216 years. Nice run while it lasted. US Consitituion, RIP. Lawyers and judges, I bow before your almighty and unlimited power. :bow: I shamelessly grovel before you :cry: Please, don't sieze my house. I'll do my best to keep your tax revenues up.

To all my non-legally employed friends, realize this... the days of individual rights are over. If you know any lawyers, start sucking up to them. Because from this day forward, they are the only hope you have for being able to maintain your life or your property. Everything else is on the table, for them to take as they see fit.

Time for me to begin investegating life in a country that believes in a rule of law, not interpretation of law.

[PanzerJaeger]

The Supreme Court has a history of bad decisions regarding any number of decisions. Thankfully those bad decisions are usually overturned by the next generation of judges. :no:

[doc_bean]

Supreme Court judges have, based on a constitution which is as old as it is vague - well by vague I mean able to be manipulated by the SC.

Their power is not based on the constitution as much as it is based on Marbury vs Madison . That's part of the problem.

[Ser Clegane]

I can only say that, no matter whether one personally agrees with decisions of a Supreme Court or not, it is quite a bad sign if a significant part of a country's population has the feeling that a Supreme Court is abusing its power and/pr is doing a bad job.

Ideally the highest court of a country should be widely accepted and considered to be a kind of moral and ubiased conscience of the country.
If that is not the case and people start to have the feeling that the court has an agenda then something is going wrong... (and I do not think that the situation can be easily remedied by simply replacing trhe judges and just overturning a lot of rulings)

[Tribesman]

Pretty unbelievable stuff. How on earth can you claim that taking property and giving it to a private bussiness is public use?
Sadly it is quite common , they normally argue that the development will be of more benefit to the local public than the existing land users are.
A common one thet is used over here is to buy up more land than is needed under compulsory purchase , and pay only agricultural prices , then sell the excess land for development prices , or for the people in government to get their friends to buy up as much land as they can in areas that are going to be affected by future projects then re-zone their friends land as development areas so they not only make a killing on the land deal they get development grants aswell .
Governments eh. ? **** 'em .

[Xiahou]

Bush needs to appoint another Scalia-like justice to the bench, regardless of how much Democrats in the senate will bitch and moan about it. Otherwise, we'll continue to see more horrible decisions like this one.

:furious3::furious3::furious3:
Unfortunately, the only Justice likely to retire anytime soon is Renquist. I'd be willing to bet the more liberal Justices are going to want to hold out until the end of Bush's term, hoping a Democrat replaces him.

[doc_bean]

Pretty unbelievable stuff. How on earth can you claim that taking property and giving it to a private bussiness is public use?
Sadly it is quite common , they normally argue that the development will be of more benefit to the local public than the existing land users are.
A common one thet is used over here is to buy up more land than is needed under compulsory purchase , and pay only agricultural prices , then sell the excess land for development prices , or for the people in government to get their friends to buy up as much land as they can in areas that are going to be affected by future projects then re-zone their friends land as development areas so they not only make a killing on the land deal they get development grants aswell .
Governments eh. ? **** 'em .

Wow, it's exactly the same here, scary.

Of course, besides that, they'll also do some random pestering, such as putting a sewer through your land when there's a creek they're going to close anyway just next to it :furious3:

[doc_bean]

I can only say that, no matter whether one personally agrees with decisions of a Supreme Court or not, it is quite a bad sign if a significant part of a country's population has the feeling that a Supreme Court is abusing its power and/pr is doing a bad job.


I was going to say research has shown that most Americans still support the supreme court, however I stumbled onto this

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=247


With an aging Supreme Court possibly facing major changes, the court's public image has eroded significantly. Currently, 57% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Supreme Court, with 30% expressing an unfavorable view. In the past, favorable views of the court typically surpassed 70%; even in January 2001, shortly after the Supreme Court's ruling deciding the contentious presidential election, 68% expressed a positive opinion of the court.

The faith seems to be declining rapidly. I think we can expect some serious changes in the not so distant future.

[Steppe Merc]

Pretty unbelievable stuff. How on earth can you claim that taking property and giving it to a private bussiness is public use?
Exactly. It's not like the government is going to be using it, or the community. It's a buisness. That's wrong.


Unfortunately, the only Justice likely to retire anytime soon is Renquist. I'd be willing to bet the more liberal Justices are going to want to hold out until the end of Bush's term, hoping a Democrat replaces him.
I heard it was gonna be the Democrats first, at least that's what my History teacher said. I said that they were idiots if they retired, and I didn't care how old they were, if they cared about the people they would stay in there until they could be replaced by a not conservative (cause a liberal's never gonna get on there).
That was before I heard about this case and the medicinal marijiuana case, however... Though I doubt that a conservative would be any better for the people.

[BDC]

Pretty unbelievable stuff. How on earth can you claim that taking property and giving it to a private bussiness is public use?
Sadly it is quite common , they normally argue that the development will be of more benefit to the local public than the existing land users are.
A common one thet is used over here is to buy up more land than is needed under compulsory purchase , and pay only agricultural prices , then sell the excess land for development prices , or for the people in government to get their friends to buy up as much land as they can in areas that are going to be affected by future projects then re-zone their friends land as development areas so they not only make a killing on the land deal they get development grants aswell .
Governments eh. ? **** 'em .

Gah, sounds like the sort of corruption you expect in Africa or China.

[Red Harvest]

Bush needs to appoint another Scalia-like justice to the bench, regardless of how much Democrats in the senate will bitch and moan about it. Otherwise, we'll continue to see more horrible decisions like this one.



I think that is precisely the sort of mistake that is leading to the types of rulings we are getting. Polarization is bad. Lets try to move away from the extremes and closer to the middle. I've read some of Scalia's opinions, some I agree with, others make no sense. The court's rulings are staggering around like a drunk in an earthquake. This isn't liberals bad or conservatives bad.

[Don Corleone]

Those numbers predate today's decision that the government has the right to rob you of your land and give it to their friends in the private sector. I guarantee to you, it'll plummet after this.

All posturing aside (sorry, I was going for my acting merit badge there a couple of posts ago), this is a terrible day for America. Our property rights are among the most fundamental we posses. The government's ability was always carefully controlled by a 'need of the greater good'. For the Supreme Court to claim that tax revenue increase, by itself, is a public good is the sort of language they use in places like Bolivia. We're doomed.

[Don Corleone]

I think that is precisely the sort of mistake that is leading to the types of rulings we are getting. Polarization is bad. Lets try to move away from the extremes and closer to the middle. I've read some of Scalia's opinions, some I agree with, others make no sense. The court's rulings are staggering around like a drunk in an earthquake. This isn't liberals bad or conservatives bad.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!! It was your so called moderates: Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsburg and (drawing a blank) that said it was such a great idea to steal people's property.

Scalia voted against it. You're speaking with a forked tongue. You claim you don't like the decision, but you would only support justices that would have supported it.

Edit: Bryer was the 5th to vote in favor of abolishing private property.

[Kanamori]

It would be interesting to read their decision... I believe it is time for an amendment that puts the power to interpret the constitution in some more democratically elected government body.

[Steppe Merc]

Don, that's why we need to get rid of the moderates. Put in real liberals. ~;)

[Spetulhu]

It seems now that taking your private property and giving it to another private individual can be seen as for public use if they clain it WILL increase tax revenues. If this is so then all churches are in trouble since they pay no property tax the government could simply take their property and put up a mall. This is really stretching the meaning of public use.

So it's actually a useful ruling. ~D

Nah, it's certainly wrong to grab people's property just in order to give it to someone else. Around here you can grab property for public use, but it had better be a road, power line or something like that. There would be axe murders if the rich tried to grab property just because their use of it brings more tax revenue.

There are other ways of getting it. You can always have your friend the bank manager try to smoke out indebted people. Require all debts be paid, sell their property on executive auction, buy it yourself and sell it to Germans for three times the price.

[Red Harvest]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!! It was your so called moderates: Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsburg and (drawing a blank) that said it was such a great idea to steal people's property.

Scalia voted against it. You're speaking with a forked tongue. You claim you don't like the decision, but you would only support justices that would have supported it.

Edit: Bryer was the 5th to vote in favor of abolishing private property.

No, not kidding at all. This court's judgements are on both ends of the spectrum. Hardly a forked tongue to say that I'm bewildered by a large number of court rulings. I've seen Scalia deny his own well established constitutional basis to support his own moral/religious view.

The more I read of the ruling, the less I like of it. But I've seen some whoppers leaning the other way as well. Hence, I temper my criticism.

The really strange thing about this one is handing more power to local authorities. In my experience this is a terrible practice, and I am opposed to it. Influential individuals and the tyranny of the "small majority" are central issues for my reasoning that it is a bad decision.

[Red Harvest]

It would be interesting to read their decision... I believe it is time for an amendment that puts the power to interpret the constitution in some more democratically elected government body.

That's a very bad idea, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the structure of our government. There is a very good reason that the Framers kept such matters out of the hands of the elected body. Go read the history of the democracy of Athens in the Peloponnesian wars. The fickle and surprisingly tyrannical scorn of Athenian democracy doomed her efforts against Sparta. Democracy can become mob rule. Hence, the decision for representative government with various divisions of power.

The Judicial branch is intentionally kept seperate and less political. It can never be "non-political" although that would be the ideal. If you had an elected judiciary you could expect even wider swings in rulings with every election. That is not good for stability for the country. Imagine key court decisions being reversed with regularity after an election.

Over the years, you will find various judicial rulings shift. There are bonehead decisions scattered throughout the Supreme Court's history. In time, the worst are corrected.

[Proletariat]

I think that is precisely the sort of mistake that is leading to the types of rulings we are getting. Polarization is bad. Lets try to move away from the extremes and closer to the middle. I've read some of Scalia's opinions, some I agree with, others make no sense. The court's rulings are staggering around like a drunk in an earthquake. This isn't liberals bad or conservatives bad.

Yeah, Scalia's claim to fame is politicizing the Constitution.

:dizzy2:

How many of his dissent's have you read again?

[Proletariat]

Should make for great news the first time some little old lady holes herself up in her home and is dragged out by federal marshals so the tennis courts for a condo can be built on her houselot.

Either that, or someone's going to hole themselves up with a stack of rifles and will end up killing some cops or get themselves killed.

This decision is an absolute abomination and goes against everything our country strands for.

On the bright side, we can hook up the spinning corpses of the country's founders and generate enough electricity to power all of the East Coast.

[JimBob]

Welcome to fascism my friends. Because this is truly fascist, as 'ol Mussolini said "Fascism should be better known as corporatism, because it is the merger of corporation and state" (paraphrased). We now have the government that can (and will) seize property to give to corporations so that they can make money. How much of that money will we as citizens see given back? Now shut up children you can't question the corporate Gods.

[Proletariat]

Actually, some say the Republic died when Lincoln forced the confederate states to stay by military force, which also included instituting a draft and consolidating more power in the federal government than the Founders had ever envisioned, a power which has only grown ever greater over time.

But, this SC decision certainly is evidence that it IS over. A horror. Which Constitution were they upholding by this decision, anyway? Can't be ours.


Turn out the lights. The Republic's over.

[Red Harvest]

Yeah, Scalia's claim to fame is politicizing the Constitution.

:dizzy2:

How many of his dissent's have you read again?

I was thinking about one recently was one where he joined Thomas in a dissent over interstate wine shipments. I was somewhat surprised that he would support limiting interstate commerce via discriminatory legislation. I've found so much hypocrisy in Blue Laws that I support dismantling most of the limitations. (I could point to some localized racial abuse I've seen of these laws in dry counties in Texas--of course the counties aren't really dry, the supporters of it can still get their wine at the restaurant, etc.) Appears more to me about supporting local attempts to regulate morality than anything else. This is a case where the constitution takes precedence, particularly where a state a law is being used as an economic lever against interstate commerce.

[Red Harvest]

Have you ever considered that the effect of this ruling might be rather easily controlled at state level through indirect methods? Merely make the requirements for allowing such seizure extreme, 75% majority popular vote. Require high percentage votes, etc. Give it a special 500% property tax... Or make the compensation 5X assessed value for private to private transfers via seizure. I'm sure there are some legal means to restrict it sufficiently until the court revisits and fixes the decision.

Contrary to the chicken little screams, this one will be manageable, but it is going to take some work, so get to it.

[Proletariat]

... I will, on stare decisis grounds, enforce a self executing "negative" Commerce Clause in two situations: (1) against a state law that facially discriminates against interstate commerce, and (2) against a state law that is indistinguishable from a type of law previously held unconstitutional by this Court. (Link (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-141.ZC.html))

To use this as an example of a Justice who just votes his heart and passions is intellectually dishonest.

[Proletariat]

Have you ever considered that the effect of this ruling might be rather easily controlled at state level through indirect methods?
--------------------------------------------
Contrary to the chicken little screams, this one will be manageable, but it is going to take some work, so get to it.

That's absurd!

The problem with those decisions being made locally is that local officials feel MORE pressure to override the property rights of individual homeowners. Local officials are MORE interested in screwing individuals so their campaign contributers can get what they want. Local officials are MORE interested in building the Rose Kennedy's Uterus monument to local officials at the expense of individual homeowners.

What makes you think it will come down to some 75% majority? And even if it did, it would defeat the actual purpose of the precedent for this decision which is blight.

[Proletariat]

The reasoning has to be around negative externalities. Most blighted areas are cesspools of crime and violence that deny ordinary citizens access to those areas. There is a public safety issue, which can be loosely grouped under "public use."

Even some commercial applications might fit in. If New London had no shopping centers or health clubs within, say 20 miles, for instance, there would be a case here that the needs of the general population for convenient access to basic services override the needs of the few who live in a specific area.

But neither of those is true. It was not a high crime area and New London has plenty of other convenient places to shop and exercise.

[Xiahou]

I was thinking about one recently was one where he joined Thomas in a dissent over interstate wine shipments.

Ummm Red, Scalia sided with the majority on that case. Read about it here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051600441.html)

By a 5 to 4 vote, the court agreed with opponents of the laws. "State policies are protected under the Twenty-first Amendment when they treat liquor produced out of state the same as its domestic equivalent," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. "The instant cases, in contrast, involve straightforward attempts to discriminate in favor of local producers. The discrimination is contrary to the Commerce Clause and is not saved by the Twenty-first Amendment."
....

Kennedy's opinion was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor. Or were you talking about something else?

[Proletariat]

Ummm Red, Scalia sided with the majority on that case. Read about it here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051600441.html)

....
Or were you talking about something else?

Do they have prizes in the backroom?

[Tribesman]

Gah, sounds like the sort of corruption you expect in Africa or China.
Yep , a banana Republic without the bananas BDC ~:cheers:
As an example , our present glorious leader is saying that he is not refusing to comply with the latest (of a long line)of corruption and planning tribunals , but will supply all the information when it is his turn to appear before them , which is going to be at least five years . To extend those 5 years he repeatedly appoints judges to the tribunal who are about to retire , once they retire the tribunal has to start from scratch again so its an everlasting 5 year wait .
If the leaders of the '16 rising could have seen the bunch of crooks that would inherit the independance , then the only reason they would have gathered at the Post Office was if they had wanted to buy some stamps :furious3:

[Red Harvest]

Actually, some say the Republic died when Lincoln forced the confederate states to stay by military force, which also included instituting a draft and consolidating more power in the federal government than the Founders had ever envisioned, a power which has only grown ever greater over time.


The draft is gone.

There was a rather large hole in the constitution on the point of secession. It simply was not addressed as to how one should leave. One could argue that it could be done by each county even...rather than by state

Robert E. Lee said this and I find it to be one of the best reasoned views I have seen:

"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution."

—Robert E. Lee, letter, 23 January 1861

However you look at the constitutionality, slavery was a bigger evil than the changes that increased Federalism. The southern states seceeded because they would not be allowed to extend slavery to other territories--or at least that is what Lincoln intended, not sure if he had the backing to actually acheive that vision. Then they conducted a military attack on the Union. The southern states seceeded in defense of a fundamentally repugnant institution.

Had secession been allowed it would have set a precedent for regions to leave whenever they failed to agree with the majority on any issue. United governance would be given over to single state veto. Poland's early history is an unforunate example of how a single consituent veto mortally handicaps a nation in the face of others.

[Pindar]

It would be interesting to read their decision... I believe it is time for an amendment that puts the power to interpret the constitution in some more democratically elected government body.

Here is a brief on the case: KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html)

[Red Harvest]

Ummm Red, Scalia sided with the majority on that case. Read about it here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051600441.html)

....
Or were you talking about something else?

That's the one. There was a rather misleading quote of the opinion in a link I had read, and it had me turned around. So anyway, I had his vote reversed. I had actually heard some his questioning, which indicated he was leaning toward the majority. That's why the dissent didn't make sense... to me. Yep, an error.

[Red Harvest]

That's absurd!

The problem with those decisions being made locally is that local officials feel MORE pressure to override the property rights of individual homeowners. Local officials are MORE interested in screwing individuals so their campaign contributers can get what they want. Local officials are MORE interested in building the Rose Kennedy's Uterus monument to local officials at the expense of individual homeowners.

What makes you think it will come down to some 75% majority? And even if it did, it would defeat the actual purpose of the precedent for this decision which is blight.

Huh? What the hell does that have to do with what I said? I've already said I have no trust of the local yocals on this sort of thing, you just restated my concerns about local tyranny. Your neighbors will stab you in the back for a few dollars--and your wealthiest most influential neighbor is the one that will get you with eminent domain when he decides to build a shopping mall or condo. What I said is that states need to get busy with legislation to prevent this privateto private abuse from happening or discouraging it to the point it is a non-issue for the time being. The backlash is incredibly strong on this one and completely crosses party boundaries, as it should be. I don't know anyone personally who supports it. However, local governments see money, and they will go after it. That's why *states* are going to have to figure out how to address it before it gets out of hand (or until the decision is revisited--that will take years, but it is going to happen.)

As an example of what I'm talking about with something minor, years ago Texas enacted some anti-speed trap legislation to combat tiny hamlets from running large police depts in order to tax those passing through on the highway. It limited them to something like 50% of their receipts coming from fines. This shut quite a few down from what had been legal highway robbery. I haven't gone back to look at the details, but it fixed much of the abuse IIRC.

Blight was already addressable to some extent before this. The area wasn't blighted, the precedent for this decision is not blight. This is more a textbook example of tyranny of the masses against the individual with respect to property rights. I support individual rights...which is one reason I don't fit on the far right despite sharing some views with the right.

[GodsPetMonkey]

Has the Supreme Court abandoned ship on the Constitution and now just making up its own rules as it goes and saying "The Constitution agrees with our ruling because we say it does" ?

Pretty much any argument can be backed by the law.

Case in point, using the grammatical device of noscitur a sociis, the line "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" in the 5th Amendment appears to be in a criminal context (" No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime", amongst others), so it could be interpreted to mean that the state cannot take private property as a punishment for a criminal conviction without compensation.
This is just an example, I have no idea of this argument (or something similar) was actually used, but the point is nothing is watertight, there are many ways of interpreting parts of the law, and legislation (constitutions included) tend to be more ambiguous then other parts.

You would really need to read up on previous interpretations of this Amendment to see if this decision is a radical change. It does not make it right however, and I feel the definition of 'public use' in this case is particularly flimsy and worrying.

[doc_bean]

EDIT:wrong info, sorry

[bmolsson]

Isn't this a bit like the Patriot act? We sacrifce a few for the best of many... ~;)

[doc_bean]

The Patriot Act only (AFAIK) gave more power to the federal government, this also applies to local governments. As much as I'm pro local government on a state level (or nation level in Europe), local governments tend to be corrupt as hell.

My town has literally taken farm land from people (worth maybe a couple of € per m²) and turned it into land for housing (worth: over 100€ per m²). The original owners were paid even less than their property was originally worth.

Another thing, my parents once received a payment from the town because they were expanding the road in front of our house. 20years later the town brought this before a court and everyone had to pay back the money WITH INTEREST. :furious3:

This is the can of worms you're opening.

OTOH people might be able to sue over the payment they receive, claiming it isn't adequate. If this is brought before a jury and they can be awarded moral compensation (the family home is lost !), the amounts of money that might get involved could put a stop to all this.

I think the SC is just trying to create jobs for all those unemployed lawyers out there. It's their part in stimulating the economy

[Proletariat]

Blight was already addressable to some extent before this. The area wasn't blighted, the precedent for this decision is not blight. This is more a textbook example of tyranny of the masses against the individual with respect to property rights. I support individual rights...which is one reason I don't fit on the far right despite sharing some views with the right.

Then I must not have taken your Chicken Little comment the way you intended. I don't understand what you think can be done at the state level to prevent this case of tyranny of the masses, as you put it so well.

[Proletariat]

How long before a "Private Property Rights" Amendment to the Constitution? Clearly, the right to own private property is as much a Civil Rights struggle as a poll tax, sexual harassment, busing, or same sex unions.

Will there be activism? Civil disobedience? Freedom Riders? "Outside agitators"?

Is Plessy vs Ferguson (http://www.watson.org/%7Elisa/blackhistory/post-civilwar/plessy.html) the last time the SCOTUS screwed something up this badly?

[Don Corleone]

How long before a "Private Property Rights" Amendment to the Constitution? Clearly, the right to own private property is as much a Civil Rights struggle as a poll tax, sexual harassment, busing, or same sex unions.

Will there be activism? Civil disobedience? Freedom Riders? "Outside agitators"?

Is Plessy vs Ferguson (http://www.watson.org/%7Elisa/blackhistory/post-civilwar/plessy.html) the last time the SCOTUS screwed something up this badly?

There will not be a 'Private Property Rights' ammendment, and even if there was, SCOTUS would just 'interpret' it to mean whatever they felt like having it mean.

SCOTUS essentially said private property in this country is a myth. If you read Stevens' decision, he's essentially making the argument that local governments can take property away from private property holders for any reason they deem necessary. In affect, that means the property really belongs to the local government because the final decision of land use rests with them.

And talk about cowardly... I'm going to paraphrase, but he essentially said "We make this decision because we think a locally elected body has better ability to make proper land use than we the federal court system". Nobody was asking SCOTUS to do anything with land except recognize the right of determination of it's proper use lay with the deed holder. In light of the decision that statement really becomes "We made this decision because we think a locally elected body has better ability to make proper land use than some dumb hayseed that holds the title".

I suggest anyone that owns property begin tracking the minutes of your local city council and your local planning department, immediately. In my city, they wanted to put my house into a 'noise abatement zone' due to a local airport expansion 10 miles away. They claimed it was to protect future buyers of property, and then a memo got leaked that what they were really doing was trying to convert our neighborhood into an industrial zone to get some of the airport peripheral business. I can't imagine that this decision isn't going to put dollar signs back in their eyes...

I'm sorry people think some of us are acting like Chicken Little and flying off the handle, but before you make a statement like that, make sure you understand the incestuous relationship between developers, planning departments and city councils. They were all but doing this before this decision. This just means that nothing can stop them now.

And there is absolutely no way a state government is going to pass a law restricting local communities from taking advantage of this. And even if they did, despite what SCOTUS says, they're a bunch of liars. They WOULD rule against such a law, in a heartbeat.

The only silver lining I see is that after a few seizures take place around the country, people will start organizing grass roots efforts against governments that employ this tactic. I can't believe there's not more of an upcry among the other residents in New London, CT.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I can't believe there's not more of an upcry among the other residents in New London, CT.

Oh yes Conneticut. The Constitution state is their motto is it not? Oh the irony.

[Don Corleone]

Well, I grew up 10 minutes away from New London. It really is a hellhole that prosperity forgot. But the houses they're talking about aren't slums, they're actually pretty nice. I heard the city's offer was 1.5million for all 7. That works out to 215K apiece, give or take. While that's not a bad price here in North Carolina, that's about 30 cents on the dollar for what riverside real estate goes for up there. The lots alone would be worth ~600K apiece. So much for 'fair market value'.

People in Connecticut, while fairly liberal, are liberal in the Union sense, not the California 'crazy pet cause' sense. Despite all it's wealth, they tend to have a blue collar: the government owes us something mentality, especially in that part of the state. I am thoroughly amazed people haven't griped about this more, but I keep checking with my parents: it's more of a big deal up by them then it is here. People are upset, but they're resigned, the government is going to do what it's going to do, like it or lump it.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Things like this make me think that the soviets really won the cold war and eastern europe as us americans and westerners know it is truly a myth and Putin is the Premeir of the world right now...why do ya think Germany is united without wwiii?

[Red Harvest]

The only silver lining I see is that after a few seizures take place around the country, people will start organizing grass roots efforts against governments that employ this tactic. I can't believe there's not more of an upcry among the other residents in New London, CT.

As Proletariat and I have been discussing (and I think actually agree on this point although you wouldn't know it from the exchange ~D ), the reason you are not going to see an outcry in that area is that the *majority* of the people in New London is that it will improve their *own* lot. The local govt couldn't have pushed it this far without strong local support. This clearly illustrates the danger of short term selfish thinking. Too many people will abandon basic principles for money or perks. In this case they covet a neighbor's land because developers have promised to build things they really want. So they as a group have used the courts to take away the property to do it. There is almost a "cannibalism" aspect to it... Out of curiosity, is it a Republican or a Democratic leaning county?

Eminent domain is often used for stadiums and other things that cross the line as well. (I oppose most of the stadium projects as the financial bases are generally preposterous and oodles of taxpayer money is used to pay for something benefitting the upper quarter or half of the local populace.) However, when this or other projects are removing blight things become more gray. Unfortunately, this particular case was not about blight.

Seizures usually don't get national attention and the rulings are made at state levels, by criteria that are largely determined by the states and their courts from what I can tell. That is another reason that I think the states are going to end up revisiting this.

From a political standpoint this will have some interesting internal conflicts on the traditionally conservative end. Businesses and developers want to be able to use this tool more easily. I think you are going to find business interests quietly pleased by the ruling. On the other hand individual property holders are going to rightly view this with fear. It is classic big guy vs. the little guy. If the big guy is allowed to do this 1 vs. 1, he will usually win. However, the little guy will far outnumber the big guy.

As to why the democratic court appointees would side with this, it looks like they see this as a case of "majority public good" outweighing individual property rights. What makes it unusual is that they have crossed a boundary that would normally expect them to resist, supporting big business vs. the little guy (money vs. individuals.) The idea of public good outweighing individual interests is a feature of pure democracy, simple majority rule. I reject this (as did our founding fathers), and I think most moderates/independents as well democratic voters will also reject it. I extend the concept of individual personal freedom to property (so long as it isn't being used to interfere with others use of theirs--the gray area.) In essence both parties fail me because of this.

Another aspect of this is that it also has ties to the "states rights/local determination" vs. federalist arguments. Remember that the democratic party had strong southern links to states rights historically. This has reversed in modern times (probably a combination of the Teddy Roosevelt rift in the Republican party, and Johnson's changes in the Democratic party.) So it becomes interesting to hear republican appointees argue against local determination (that they now generally support), while the democratic appointees argue for it. :dizzy2:

[Don Corleone]

It's a city in Connecticut. Don't let the population figure fool you, it's all projects and such. I don't think a Republican could get elected dogcatcher. They're all Dems.

[Kanamori]

Here is a brief on the case: KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al

It seems to be an excellent resource, thank you. It looks to me that the Midkriff decision intended the handeling of private property to other private entities as a means to break the land oligopoly in Hawaii, not so that pfizer could build a plant in the place of houses. (Interestingly, Midkriff decision was supported by all the justices, besides the sick Marshall.) Basically, supported by my informal and pedestrian base of legal matters, it appears that Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens believe that it would be better for the town to have pfizer there than it would be to have the residents there. Although I cannot disagree with that judgement, I believe it is beyond the reasonable scope of our government to force them out of their homes; majority be damned, it is their house and the government ought not to take it from them in order to give the land to pfizer.



That's a very bad idea, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the structure of our government. There is a very good reason that the Framers kept such matters out of the hands of the elected body. Go read the history of the democracy of Athens in the Peloponnesian wars. The fickle and surprisingly tyrannical scorn of Athenian democracy doomed her efforts against Sparta. Democracy can become mob rule. Hence, the decision for representative government with various divisions of power.

Although I appreciate your thought and concern, I am quite comfortable in holding my position. You will see in threads long ago, that I once supported this series of seemingly logical thoughts -- that the framers intended the courts to have the ability to strike down laws. Since, though, I have reconsidered. The Constitution overlooks the question of who ought to strike down unconstitutional laws; the Supreme Court took the power upon itself in order to further the cause of Federalism, and the power remained out of convenience. As it is apperant in this case, the Courts make decisions on what is best; the ability to do such is too powerful to comfortably leave in the hands of a few that are difficult to reach and are disconnected from the populace. I understand that our government is Republican Democracy, and I support that, but the few should only have so much ability to thwart or impose themselves on the many, and this is a case of crossing the line. Perhaps it was misinterpreted what I meant, though. I do not wish for some body to have this power that is elected every two years and I do not necessarily even want an directly elected body, I only wish for the people to have more influence over them, be it easier impeachment or what have you (I do not claim to know the best alternative, but I do claim that their power is too great to have them be so isolated and unaccountable for their decisions).

[Red Harvest]

I believe it is beyond the reasonable scope of our government to force them out of their homes; majority be damned, it is their house and the government ought not to take it from them in order to give the land to pfizer.


Yes, I agree 100%.

Over the long haul, the courts reflect the will of the people within the framework of the constitution (and that frame sure does get bent at times). In the short term there are strange rulings. I will remind you that a more rapidly responding/more directly appointed judiciary is even more prone to aberrant rulings just like the one you and I are now complaining about. It is more likely to happen when you are in the other 49% on an issue or even 20 or 30%. Whether or not we agree on what was really intended for the court, it is clear that the framers were concerned about simple majority rule trampling on the minority.

I'm fascinated by the reversal of positions that this ruling creates in one area: Conservatives members resisting local rule, democratic members advocating local majority rule. If anything, the ruling could lead to a better appreciation of both sides for the other's usual stance on centralized/decentralized rule making.

[Don Corleone]

Yes, I agree 100%.

Over the long haul, the courts reflect the will of the people within the framework of the constitution (and that frame sure does get bent at times). In the short term there are strange rulings.

I'm sorry sir, you are mistaken. SCOTUS inflicted abortion on demand in the 3rd trimester upon us over 30 years ago, and the will of the people is still overwhelmingly opposed. SCOTUS decisions reflect that which benefits SCOTUS and the rest of the country be damned.


I'm fascinated by the reversal of positions that this ruling creates in one area: Conservatives members resisting local rule, democratic members advocating local majority rule. If anything, the ruling could lead to a better appreciation of both sides for the other's usual stance on centralized/decentralized rule making.

I believe the primary impact it will have on the body politic is the effect it has had on me. A recognition that:

-The government, at local, state & federal levels has become tyranical and has no restraints upon it's power.

-That I have no say in the brokerage of power that occurs all around me.

-That I have no property rights.

-That the only surprises left for me are the new and various ways SCOTUS continues to strip us of our fundamental rights. I don't know how or what the issue will be, but it's my prediction that within two years, SCOTUS will issue a new imperial mandate that will make this one seem rather mild in comparison.

I have become an utter cynic. I have no respect left for my government, it's policies or the document that used to govern it. Now, I begin my new life of fear... constantly reading the minutes of every city, school board, county, state & federal committe or legislative body for when they've decided to come take what's mine. Republicans, Democrats? Why bother. Freedom in America is dead.

[Pindar]

It seems to be an excellent resource, thank you.

My pleasure.


Basically, supported by my informal and pedestrian base of legal matters, it appears that Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens believe that it would be better for the town to have pfizer there than it would be to have the residents there. Although I cannot disagree with that judgement, I believe it is beyond the reasonable scope of our government to force them out of their homes; majority be damned, it is their house and the government ought not to take it from them in order to give the land to pfizer.[

The basic rationale revolves around the now standard Court interpretation that "public use" equals "public purpose". This can be found in the Bradley Decision (1896)




The Constitution overlooks the question of who ought to strike down unconstitutional laws; the Supreme Court took the power upon itself in order to further the cause of Federalism, and the power remained out of convenience.

Exactly right. Judicial Review is a contrivance.

[Proletariat]

As Proletariat and I have been discussing (and I think actually agree on this point although you wouldn't know it from the exchange ~D ...

I noticed that, too. Is this like 'disagreeing to agree'? :gring:

[doc_bean]

The basic rationale revolves around the now standard Court interpretation that "public use" equals "public purpose". This can be found in the Bradley Decision (1896)



The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court’s prior cases to derive today’s far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8—12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham’s high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O’Connor’s dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners’ favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Now, I bet Justice Thomas is one of those ultra-conservatives and I'm jeopardizing my euro-liberal membership card here, but the man makes much more sense than the people who agree with the verdict. If they meant public purpose, or public good, they would have written that. Public use seems pretty clear to me. Bradley can say whatever it wants, they're not basing their judgements on Dred Scott anymore either are they ?

Also, any Democrat who thinks this is a good idea is either very naive, a communist or a sell-out to corporate America.
This measure is a double edge sword, believe me, we had/have to deal with it here too, it allows companies to steal from the poor but it also let's the majority steal from the rich. No one wins in the long run.

[Pindar]

Now, I bet Justice Thomas is one of those ultra-conservatives and I'm jeopardizing my euro-liberal membership card here, but the man makes much more sense than the people who agree with the verdict.

That's because the Court decision is deeply flawed.

[doc_bean]

That's because the Court decision is deeply flawed.

Well yes, otherwise I wouldn't be agreeing with the opposition now would I ? ~D

I know the SC judges are quite old, are they sometimes tested to see if their mental capacities still remain ?

[Red Harvest]

I noticed that, too. Is this like 'disagreeing to agree'? :gring:

~D Well, said! I had to read the line several times before I had it turned around right... :embarassed:

[Proletariat]

Posted on NRO's corner


The quickest way to reverse Kelo is to find some conservative town in Utah somewhere to shut down an abortion clinic in order to make room for a Wal-Mart. Also, that would be the most fun way to get Kelo reversed.

Heh

[Xiahou]

The quickest way to reverse Kelo is to find some conservative town in Utah somewhere to shut down an abortion clinic in order to make room for a Wal-Mart. Also, that would be the most fun way to get Kelo reversed.
That is kinda funny. Of course, instead of reversing it they'd probably just make an exception for abortion clinics...


I know the SC judges are quite old, are they sometimes tested to see if their mental capacities still remain ? I think we need judicial term limits. Give em 1 ten year term and then get some new blood in there. They've given themselves too much power to be 'dictators' for life. While we're at it, lets add term limits to the House and Senate as well- enough career politicians. :bow:

[doc_bean]

I think we need judicial term limits. Give em 1 ten year term and then get some new blood in there. They've given themselves too much power to be 'dictators' for life. While we're at it, lets add term limits to the House and Senate as well- enough career politicians. :bow:

Really starting to go off-topic here, but...

I think a good politician is hard to find, limiting the terms would just force people to choose for a lesser politician. If people don't like long term politicians they should just vote them out :bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I think a good politician is hard to find,

Judges are not supposed to be politicians.

[Don Corleone]

Really starting to go off-topic here, but...

I think a good politician is hard to find, limiting the terms would just force people to choose for a lesser politician. If people don't like long term politicians they should just vote them out :bow:

We can't vote them out. They issue laws & policy edicts, but they're annointed 'autocrat for life'. We don't get to vote on them.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It seems to me thast the SC has now stated that getting money for the government(increased tax revenue) makes something for the public good. So anytime someone could show them that they could give the government more money than you do you would be in danger of losing your property. Again churches dont pay property tax so where does that leave them?

[Don Corleone]

That's SCOTUS to you, bub. Be reverent and deferential, or your house is next. And I'm pretty sure we all know where valuable church land is headed. SCOTUS views the words 'God' and 'Christmas' intolerable. How long do you think they're going to hold back?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That's SCOTUS to you, bub. Be reverent and deferential, or your house is next.

It should be Scrotus ~;)

[Don Corleone]

I warned you!!! ~:furious3:

I believe Commisar Ginsburg has been assigned your case. Her personal security force will be dropping by sometime this evening (probably around 2:30AM) to relocate and reeducate you.

[doc_bean]

Judges are not supposed to be politicians.

I was referring to



While we're at it, lets add term limits to the House and Senate as well- enough career politicians.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Judges are not supposed to be politicians.


I was referring to


Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
While we're at it, lets add term limits to the House and Senate as well- enough career politicians.

Ok lets give you that and look at the orginal post that started this.


Originally Posted by doc_bean
Really starting to go off-topic here, but...

I think a good politician is hard to find, limiting the terms would just force people to choose for a lesser politician. If people don't like long term politicians they should just vote them out

I ay want a good legislature but I certainly dont want to elect a good politician to anything. ~;)

[Proletariat]

Btw, wtf's wrong with my country?

As far as I can tell, we seem to be the only people in this country truly disturbed by this decision. It seems like a non-story to the media.

I can't find any commentaries condemning this decision, from left, right or center. Does anyone know of any?

[Steppe Merc]

Excellent point. It is sad that the media and the people are far more interested in the fact that Tom Cruise just got engaged, and the latest stupid reality show...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As far as I can tell, we seem to be the only people in this country truly disturbed by this decision. It seems like a non-story to the media.

Well the mainstream media sure. Dont you listen to talk radio or watch Fox? Theve been all over it.

From Townhall.com


A devastating loss for property rights
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the government can take away your home if it finds another "purpose" for it.
- Soapbox: Now you own it. Now you don't.
- Institute for Justice: Meet the people behind the property in the case
- Thomas Dissent: Court can't eliminate enumerated liberties (pdf)
- Blogs Abuzz: N.Z. Bear charts the Kelo conversation
- Castle Coalition: Protect your castle by working on local laws
- Reactions: EFF | Cato | ACU | ATR | Bluegrass | CEI | Mackinac

[Proletariat]

Well the mainstream media sure. Dont you listen to talk radio or watch Fox? Theve been all over it.


I only watch baseball on television. (Sox are about to sweep the Phillies. I love it.) and listen to a little NPR.

Thank God someone's paying attention.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

and listen to a little NPR.

How can you listen to that leftwing trash. You might as well listen to Air America ~;)

[Proletariat]

How can you listen to that leftwing trash.

I have to whet my outrage somehow.

:gring:

[Don Corleone]

How can you listen to that leftwing trash. You might as well listen to Air America ~;)

You know, in some ways, it's actually pretty good. I just wish to God they'd get Daniel Shore and his incessant monotone about how W is really the anti-Christ off the air.

*In my best nasally whine* There is absolutely no evidence vindicating the president of the United States from causing the Dec 2004 tsunami that struck Indonesia and Sri Lanka. Most informed sources agree it was part of a deal to enrich Haliburton through construction, or I should say reconstruction contracts. Perhaps some evidence absolving the president of these dastardly accusations will surface, but until it does, the administration, and Haliburton, and all Republicans, are under a cloud of suspicion.".

I should write copy for the guy ~D

[Proletariat]

*In my best nasally whine* There is absolutely no evidence vindicating the president of the United States from causing the Dec 2004 tsunami that struck Indonesia and Sri Lanka. Most informed sources agree it was part of a deal to enrich Haliburton through construction, or I should say reconstruction contracts. Perhaps some evidence absolving the president of these dastardly accusations will surface, but until it does, the administration, and Haliburton, and all Republicans, are under a cloud of suspicion.".


rofl.

I just hate Diane Rehm.

[kiwitt]

I read this article too and was reminded of my recent playing of Sim City 4.

Need to build a road. Just lay the road over the house, house gone.

I think Sim City is missing an element here !

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Those of you with waterfront property better sell now while you still can. ~;) It has come down to whatever benefits the government is good for the people. This is nothing more than state ownership of all property.

[Red Harvest]

Some of the conservatives here would find Singapore very interesting. I worked there for awhile and it is a very unusual state with its pro's and con's. It is sort of an East meets West model where the nation is run very much like a large business--it IS "Sim City". Individual property rights don't seem to be important (think most of the real estate is long term leases from the govt.) The good of the state/majority is considered more important than that of the individual. Singapore is tough on crime, even on white collar crime (I really LIKED that aspect--they sent away a woman for something like 5 to 7 years for failing to report her husband's embezzling from his employer, since she knew and was profiting from it.) The society is diverse, multi-ethnic and tolerant. On the other hand, they don't allow much political dissent, and their judicial system does not appear to have many protections/rights for the accused. I can't claim that I understand Singapore fully, and I might be misrepresenting it here, but mostly I would describe it as a benevolent autocracy.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_062705/content/limbaugh_legal_division.Par.0002.ImageFile.jpg


If there were nine conservatives on this court it would have been nine-to-nothing. "No way. The government does not get to take somebody's private property in order to have somebody else that's a private citizen build something else there." A moderate court, who knows what a moderate court would do, 7-2, 8-1, but still find against the State of Connecticut on this. A moderately left-leaning court might vote 5-4 but still in favor of the private property owners. But this court? This court voted yes 5-4 and this is called an extreme right-wing court? Chuck Schumer, may your house be seized for the public good someday? Hey, folks, there's a piece of property that could revive the town of Hyannisport that I've got on my mind here, could increase the tax base of the town for public good -- except that's not what's going to happen. The Chuck Schumers and the Ted Kennedys and all of the rest of the upper class, they're not going to have their homes taken. It's going to be the little guy. It's going to be the little guy that the Democrats claim to represent, that the left claims to represent. It's going to be the little guy that still votes for these people because they're out there representing them and standing with the little guy. It's the little guy whose property is going to be taken. Now for whatever reason -- not that government needs it -- a private citizen can say, "I want to build a development there," and the government come in and say, "I'm going to join you in this because I'll get more tax revenue from this.

LINK (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_062705/content/limbaugh_legal_division.guest.html)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I like this one

http://www.rationalmind.net/images/blog/05.06.23.PropertyWrongs-X.gif

Hey didnt youused to have to own property to vote? If this were enacted back then they could then take your right to vote away.

[drone]

Figured I'd just resurrect this old thread for this (although the search function failed me here, maybe the forum rework messed it up?). So it begins:
http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1128229442104780.xml?starledger?nnj&coll=1


Assemblyman denies influencing townhouse deal
Union Twp. moves to seize land, give supporter building rights
Sunday, October 02, 2005
IAN T. SHEARN
Star-Ledger Staff

On May 21, Albert G. Mauti Jr. and his cousin Joseph hosted a fundraiser for Assemblyman Joseph Cryan at the Westmount Country Club in Passaic County. The two developers and family members picked up the $10,400 dinner tab, donated another $8,000 and raised more than $70,000 that night for the powerful Union County Democrat, according to state election records.

Three days later, the governing body in Cryan's hometown of Union Township -- all Democrats -- introduced an ordinance paving the way for the Mautis to build 90 or so townhouses on six acres of abandoned industrial land along the Conrail line in town.

There is just one problem: Union Township doesn't own the land.

It is owned by Carol Segal, a 65-year-old retired electrical engineer. Over the past 10 years, the Union Township resident says, he has spent about $1.5 million to acquire the property, and he, too, wants to build townhouses there.

Segal said he met with Cryan, who is head of the township's Democratic Party, and other local officials "scores of times" over the past five years to discuss the project. He claims the talks turned adversarial after he rejected proposals to work with various developers they proposed.

On May 24, the five-member township committee voted unanimously to authorize the municipality to seize Segal's land through eminent domain and name its own developer.

"They want to steal my land," Segal said. "What right do they have when I intend to do the exact same thing they want to do with my property?"

Cryan, 44, a rising star in state Democratic politics, denied any connection between the fundraiser and the committee's vote. He described the Mautis as "good friends," but said he played no role in shaping the township's redevelopment plan.

"My involvement is zero," Cryan said.

Cryan said he met with Segal no more than five times, and it was always at his legislative office. All discussions were initiated by Segal, and at no time did he recommend developers, Cryan said. Cryan said his message to Segal was, "I can't help you. I don't make those decisions; the governing body does."

There is more, but I don't feel like registering to this site to get the rest. Anybody else heard about this? I tried to google for another source, but no luck.

If this is true, this confirms my fears about the SC decision here. Allow local government the power to use eminent domain for "friends" and all bets are off. Local officials are notoriously corrupt anyway, we may as well allow open the doors to organized crime running our cities. Is this the work of your family, Don?~;)

[scooter_the_shooter]

I expect a disgruntled man who lost his land to play sniper on the supreme court some day~;) If this happens I hope they never find out who did it.

[Red Harvest]

I expect a disgruntled man who lost his land to play sniper on the supreme court some day~;) If this happens I hope they never find out who did it.
Is your solution to everything to shoot someone? I'm opposed to gun control, but the more I see of these posts, the more I'm thinking that you should be kep well clear of any weapons.

[Don Corleone]

I have no idea what you're talking about Drone. The Gautis are respectable businessmen and would never resort to such parlor tricks. Besides, everyone knows a Democratic assemblyman can be bought off for much less than $80K US, especially in Union Township. ~;)

All kidding aside, the real travesty of Kelo v. New London wasn't the abuse of emminent domain. That's been going on as long as there's been politicians to abuse it, kiddies. The finger in the eye of that decision is that the Supreme Court enshrined graft into law. Buy an assemblyman and take any piece of property the assemblyman has under his control. Don't waste your breath whining about it, SCOTUS says so, and we all know, they're more powerful than the other 2 branches combined.

[Reverend Joe]

I always knew those Democrats were rightwingers underneath that leftwing facade. The New Deal days are gone; it's time for a new, truly leftist party. Call them the Leftist opposition; the minoritarians, if you will. ~;)

[Divinus Arma]

Oh My GOD. This is exactly what Sandra Day O' wrote about in her dissenting opinion. I cannot believe it is happening so soon.

What the hell is happening to my country?

[Strike For The South]

*Strike rolls into fetal positon*

[Mongoose]

Yay! this is great!

finally they found something that every can dislike. conservatives don't like it because the goverment can rip your property away from you, and left-wing people don't like it because the poor are being pushed out of their homes in place of large compaines!

:hide:


"*Strike rolls into fetal positon*"

If you want to you can hide behind the couch too. But im not sure how long that will last; the couch development industry is growing daily...

[Strike For The South]

Yay! this is great!

finally they found something that every can dislike. conservatives don't like it because the goverment can rip your property away from you, and left-wing people don't like it because the poor are being pushed out of their homes in place of large compaines!


:hide:

wait leftists dislike it? Nevermind the goverment needs the land~;)

[Don Corleone]

Well, if New London and Union Township have you all aquiver, by all means, avoid reading about the tragic tale of Riviera Beach, Florida, where the mayor and city council decided to evict over 5000 people from 1700 residences. Why? A developer told them they wanted to construct a new waterfront mall. GET OUT! Because SCOTUS said so!!! (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051003-122623-2136r.htm)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I expect a disgruntled man who lost his land to play sniper on the supreme court some day~;) If this happens I hope they never find out who did it.

Are you the poster boy for the Charles Whitman fan-club or something? Perhaps you can call for impeachment or something instead? Suggest that the justices voting for that decision need to re-:book: the Constitution or something....

Also, if you have ever posted a simliar sentiment regarding a U.S. president, you could well have a file open with the protection detachment of the Secret Service.

Seamus