Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    It is now legal for a city to kick you out of your house, pay you what an appraiser says the property is worth, and turn around and sell your property to a PRIVATE DEVELOPER for use in private projects such as building shopping centers etc. So much for private property rights !!!!! The supposed legal justification ... higher property tax revenues from the developed property will be paid to the city.

  2. #2
    Featured Member showgirlschloe's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Somewhere in Ohio
    Posts
    907
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    I just heard about this. Can you believe how absolutely wrong that is? I'm moving to another country.

  3. #3
    God/dess
    Joined
    May 2004
    Posts
    6,336
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    I'm all for living in a country with a government headed up by Melonie.

    Melonie buy an island, pick me to be one of your citizens (I can farm or something useful) and save me from this place before they steal my house.

    Sometimes I so disappointed in what goes on in this country.



    Because there ain't no tits on the radio

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    well, if there is any redeeming factor at work, it is that with every increasingly outrageous decision from the liberal 5 on the supreme court, and with every outrageous decision from the circuit courts, more and more American voters become more and more disgusted. As I have said in other threads, all that needs to happen in the 2006 election is for about 3 Democratic Senate seats to swing to the Republican side of the aisle ... no more filibusters ... and a whole bunch of appointments for 'originalist' and 'strict constructionist' judges will quickly follow to counterbalance these activist judges who seeming enjoy legislating from the bench at every opportunity.

  5. #5
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    Interesting. And I suppose you all came to this judgement after reading the Court's 56 page opinion.

    Perhaps this issue (interpretation of the "Takings" clause and "Public Use" clause) is just a bit more complex than some dittohead-esque sound bite. Just maybe the Court considered some 200+ years of jurisprudence on this issue. This is FAR from the landmark you seem to think. In fact the reverse decision would have been new law.

    Oh, and by the way, Nixon appointed Justice Stevens, the author, and Reagan appointed Justice Kennedy, another supporter of the Court's decision.

    In case you're interested in reading it:
    http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf


    Guess what...the precedent for this reaches back to 1876:

    Dayton Gold & Silver Mining Co. v. Seawell, 11 Nev. 394,
    410, 1876 WL 4573, *11 (1876) (.If public occupation and enjoyment of
    the object for which land is to be condemned furnishes the only and
    true test for the right of eminent domain, then the legislature would
    certainly have the constitutional authority to condemn the lands of any
    private citizen for the purpose of building hotels and theaters. Why
    not? A hotel is used by the public as much as a railroad. The public
    have the same right, upon payment of a fixed compensation, to seek
    rest and refreshment at a public inn as they have to travel upon a
    railroad"

    What is the basis for the dissent? A reversal of dozens of previous decisions and a new interpretation of the clause they consider to be "original intent" unlike the dozens of Justices that ruled before them, including several unanimous decisions. From the dissent:

    "I would revisit our Public Use Clause cases and consider returning to the original meaning of the Public Use Clause"

    Of course, he knows better that ALL the previous Justices before him that interpreted public use. Which side on this issue is "activist"? I think the answer is clear.



    Last edited by stant; 06-23-2005 at 04:45 PM.

  6. #6
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    Hey look man, we all rent the land from the government anyhow. Just don't pay your taxes and see which landlord comes to kick you out of your house. The government decides who's yard starts where. The government decides if land can be transferred between parties.

    The government owns the land - not the citizen. You get to pay for the right to use it until the government decides it can make more money off of it than what you can make.

  7. #7
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by stant
    Oh, and by the way, Nixon appointed Justice Stevens, the author, and Reagan appointed Justice Kennedy, another supporter of the Court's decision.
    And Bush I appointed Souter, another supporter.

    So out of the five who comprised for the majority vote, Republicans appointed three of them. In fact, if the Supreme Court followed party lines, there would be Republican-friendly decisions every time. But wouldn't you know, those pesky Justices seem to follow their own path once appointed.

  8. #8
    God/dess doc-catfish's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    123 Tornado Alley Way, Hooterville USA
    Posts
    6,322
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 30 Posts

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    What amazes me is our House (also Republican controlled I might point out) passed the flag desecration amendment again the other day. I guess they're only interested in changing our Constitution to limit our rights, not protect them.
    Former SCJ now in rehab.

  9. #9
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    If those justices are indeed only 'pesky' I wouldn't be as concerned. I would begin by referring you back to the 'founders' constitution which gives their original intent in regard to PUBLIC use. Over time the courts have allowed this to progress from purely governmental use i.e. roads ... to gov't regulated private industry public use i.e. railroads and power lines ... to non-gov't regulated gov't subsidized private developers i.e. demolishing 'urban blighted' buildings to construct low income housing plus totally private commercial property which provides a direct service to the public (i.e. your 'hotels' plus retail).

    The point which sets this ruling apart is that a major beneficiary of this urban redevelopment plan is Pfizer Corp. ... whose only apparent 'public use' aspect is including a visitor center at their totally private research facility which otherwise offers no direct service to the public ! This point is 10 steps beyond roads, 5 steps beyond railroads and power companies, three steps beyond 'low income gov't subsidized housing', and two steps beyond "hotels" and retail development which do provide a direct service to the public.

    The only apparent necessary 'public benefit' now needed to justify a local government exercising eminent domain is increased property tax revenues for the city, with a vague promise that the private developer will also add new jobs in the area. Consider the possibilities of this precedent. Suppose there is an elderly couple who owns a California beachfront home. A developer offers to construct a membership only beachfront club with yacht docking facilities on that property, with 10 times the potential property tax revenue. Out go grandma and grandpa ! This will be widespread in states like California where property tax rate increases for existing property owners are capped, whereas new property owners are required to pay the current (and much higher) property tax rate.

    This ruling basically gives local governments free rein to perform 'Social Engineering' in their communities by handing them the power to uproot and displace 'pesky' private property owners who don't happen to agree with the urban planners "vision" for the community. This is straight out of the Soviet central planning instruction book !

    IMHO the feces is going to hit the fan very soon when companies like WalMart press the eminent domain issue to try and construct new stores, making the argument that their low retail prices, added jobs, and potential increased property tax revenues offer ample justification for city politicians on the basis of 'public benefit'. If/when local politicians then have to choose between backing a WalMart project versus backing a project with a unionized retailer on the basis of 'Social Engineering' all hell is going to break loose in the courts !
    Last edited by Melonie; 06-24-2005 at 02:41 AM.

  10. #10
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    If those justices are indeed only 'pesky' I wouldn't be as concerned. I would begin by referring you back to the 'founders' constitution which gives their original intent in regard to PUBLIC use. Over time the courts have allowed this to progress from purely governmental use i.e. roads ... to gov't regulated private industry public use i.e. railroads and power lines ... to non-gov't regulated gov't subsidized private developers i.e. demolishing 'urban blighted' buildings to construct low income housing plus totally private commercial property which provides a direct service to the public (i.e. your 'hotels' plus retail).
    Excellent, you decided to read the decision. At least the dissent. I'm guessing you may have passed over the majority opinion... we'll see.

    Even so, your revised opinion is a far cry from the article's sound bite. Also quite a contrast to your original post and the follow up posts by Melanie ditto-heads. (no offense intended)


    I would begin by referring you back to the 'founders' constitution which gives their original intent in regard to PUBLIC use.
    Read the fifth amendment. It says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    That's it. No description whatsoever or definition of intent of "public use" beyond the plain language. You must be reading a different Constitution. References are a good thing. Provided they exist. This is dishonest rhetoric.


    The point which sets this ruling apart is that a major beneficiary of this urban redevelopment plan is Pfizer Corp. ... whose only apparent 'public use' aspect is including a visitor center at their totally private research facility which otherwise offers no direct service to the public ! This point is 10 steps beyond roads, 5 steps beyond railroads and power companies, three steps beyond 'low income gov't subsidized housing', and two steps beyond "hotels" and retail development which do provide a direct service to the public.
    OK, this is off the mark. Read Sandy O'Connor's dissent for a better explanation. The difference is the redevelopment of urban "blight" is no longer a (presumably, not defined) necessary factor in the decision process. No decision has "blight" as a defined element of the process. The dissent presumes it to be one.

    The only apparent necessary 'public benefit' now needed to justify a local government exercising eminent domain is increased property tax revenues for the city, with a vague promise that the private developer will also add new jobs in the area. Consider the possibilities of this precedent. Suppose there is an elderly couple who owns a California beachfront home. A developer offers to construct a membership only beachfront club with yacht docking facilities on that property, with 10 times the potential property tax revenue. Out go grandma and grandpa ! This will be widespread in states like California where property tax rate increases for existing property owners are capped, whereas new property owners are required to pay the current (and much higher) property tax rate.
    This is complete fabrication. Take a look at the majority opinions. California limits this by statute. A means endorsed by the Court.

    This ruling basically gives local governments free rein to perform 'Social Engineering' in their communities by handing them the power to uproot and displace 'pesky' private property owners who don't happen to agree with the urban planners "vision" for the community. This is straight out of the Soviet central planning instruction book !
    This is whacked. Alien conspiracy theory nonsense. Also read Kennedy's concurring opinion. He addresses this wackiness very eloquently.

    IMHO the feces is going to hit the fan very soon when companies like WalMart press the eminent domain issue to try and construct new stores, making the argument that their low retail prices, added jobs, and potential increased property tax revenues offer ample justification for city politicians on the basis of 'public benefit'. If/when local politicians then have to choose between backing a WalMart project versus backing a project with a unionized retailer on the basis of 'Social Engineering' all hell is going to break loose in the courts !
    I certainly like the IMHO part. But remember, Walmart is a PUBLIC use under the existing definition. You are again off the mark. The issue of competitive developers is not even remotely related to this decision. This is a nonsense red herring. It's creative, but not relevant.

    You clearly did not read a word of the majority opinions. Either of them. The key factor in deciding this case was balancing the Federal vs. the local authority's power to define "public use". The Court has consistently ruled in favor of local control. Many states, including California, limit this type of emminent domain action to "blight" redevelopment by statute, something endorsed as an option by the Court in this opinion. This would therefore NEVER happen in California. Nice try to shoehorn in various sound-bite right wing slogans like "social engineering" but read BOTH sides. They don't fit.

    You wisely chose to ignore the issue of which side was the "activist" judicial opinion. Reversing a century of precedents in one arrogant unilateral decision is "legislating from the bench", in conservative sloganism terms. That's what your team wanted to do here.
    Last edited by stant; 06-24-2005 at 03:52 AM.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Ana_217's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    76
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    caveat emptor (buyer beware)?

  12. #12
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    I wasn't arguing for or against the whole decision, which I haven't read and don't feel comfortable commenting on. I generally hold to the more traditional view of eminent domain - that it's a tool to be used by the government to place a public improvement. That "public improvement," to my mind, would be roads, power lines, reservoirs, etc., and I guess I could stretch it to renewal to eliminate blight.

    I personally would not stretch it to government-hammered private development absent blight, although the Court is certainly not bound, thankfully enough, to the Zeno, Charm, or Stant views of things. I'm not clear from reading this forum whether the Court was adopting an approval of private development as public improvement per se, or whether they were simply leaving that type of decision up to local jurisdictions, which is an important distinction.

    Really, I was just addressing the notion that a "stronger Republican majority will do the right kind of judicial appointments." Clearly, that hasn't happened, at least from a Republican viewpoint.

    The Justices, the Presidents who appointed them and the President's party, listed in alphabetical order by last name (to avoid appearances of bias on my part):

    Stephen Breyer - Clinton (Democrat)
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton (Democrat)
    Anthony Kennedy - Reagan (Republican)
    Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan (Republican)
    William Rehnquist - Nixon (Republican)
    Antonin Scalia - Reagan (Republican)
    David Souter - Bush (Republican)
    John Paul Stevens - Ford (Republican)
    Clarence Thomas - Bush (Republican)

    By my count, that's 7 out of 9 that were placed there by Republicans. That's 77.7777777777(etc)%. Over three-quarters. I'd say the Republicans have had their chance to pack it.

  13. #13
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    You clearly did not read a word of the majority opinions. Either of them. The key factor in deciding this case was balancing the Federal vs. the local authority's power to define "public use". The Court has consistently ruled in favor of local control. Many states, including California, limit this type of eminent domain action to "blight" redevelopment by statute, something endorsed as an option by the Court in this opinion.
    The true point of the majority opinion, although not stated in so many words, is that local governments are not constrained by any particular list of acceptable criteria as to what constitutes 'public use' ... meaning that they are free to use any 'excuse', including something as basic as an increase in property tax revenue, to justify eminent domain condemnation of private properties and transfer of title to private developers. Under the 'founder's' constitution, this would appear to be a massive breach of the original intent behind the words 'public use', no matter how other supreme courts have already stretched that original intent to include such things as 'urban blight' redevelopment. I would remind you that the supreme court has reversed the decisions of previous supreme courts on other matters, such that not every past supreme court ruling constitutes valid legal precedent to the current supreme court. This supreme court ruling has de-facto substituted the phrase 'public interest' in place of the phrase 'public use', with seemingly the sole definers of what is in the 'public interest' now being local politicians.

    As far as California state statute, two issues apply. The first falls under the general heading of 'federalism' i.e. local gov'ts seeking to bail themselves out of massive budget deficits can point to the federal precedent to 'reinterpret' state law. The second is your misunderstanding of the California prop which caps real estate tax rate increases. It is my understanding that this prop only applies to the original real estate titleholder, thus when a property is sold and the title is transferred to a new owner, the property tax rate caps the former owner enjoyed immediately go in the dumpster and the new owner must pay the current tax rate. Given the appreciation of real estate values in 'hot' states like California, and given the effect of the prop which has limited the rate of increase to a few percent per year for the last 10 years while property values have risen to 5-10 times the property values of 10 years ago, this supreme court ruling provides local gov'ts with a means of 5-10 timing their real estate tax revenues on certain pieces of property.

    As to the majority of supreme court justices being appointed by Republican administrations, that's a whole 'nuther story which is probably worthy of its own thread.
    Last edited by Melonie; 06-24-2005 at 11:09 AM.

  14. #14
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    Here comes the next land rush!




    D.C. officials hope to use new court ruling to force out residents for a new stadium and mall.

  15. #15
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    I believe there is a limitation of eminent domain in the case of residential properties. There must be available sufficient land on which to rebuild within some distance or same of adjacent jurisdictions.

    In any case influential private business use of the government authority to extort private citizens out of their residential or business property (with or without compensation to move/rebuild/business loss) sounds like a totalitarian plot to me. I do not believe red/blue politics is a factor here, just the desire for control of someone else (political will).
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  16. #16
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    I believe there is a limitation of eminent domain in the case of residential properties. There must be available sufficient land on which to rebuild within some distance or same of adjacent jurisdictions.
    This may be part of some state eminent domain laws, but it does not appear to be part of the Supreme Court ruling. Also, under the 'federalism' principle, state courts and legislatures are now free to make changes in interpretations of existing state laws or to write new laws which are more in line with the Supreme Court decision, meaning that anybody who is temporarily 'unaffected' due to current state eminent domain law restrictions really can't count on those restrictions remaining in place in the future.

    In any case influential private business use of the government authority to extort private citizens out of their residential or business property (with or without compensation to move/rebuild/business loss) sounds like a totalitarian plot to me. I do not believe red/blue politics is a factor here, just the desire for control of someone else (political will).
    I would partially agree, to the extent that 'Social Engineering' advocates now have the ability/power to re-engineer their cities over the objections of private property owners. I'm not so sure how much of a pure 'political will / gov't control' aspect is in play here, but I AM totally certain that potential increases in property tax revenue to the city was a huge factor. Undoubtedly, potential increases in local politicians' re-election campaign contributions from would-be developers will also play a significant role !
    Last edited by Melonie; 06-25-2005 at 02:53 AM.

  17. #17
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    I would partially agree, to the extent that 'Social Engineering' advocates now have the ability/power to re-engineer their cities over the objections of private property owners. I'm not so sure how much of a pure 'political will / gov't control' aspect is in play here, but I AM totally certain that potential increases in property tax revenue to the city was a huge factor. Undoubtedly, potential increases in local politicians' re-election campaign contributions from would-be developers will also play a significant role !
    Hey look, the country is going broke. Is there any surprise that the powers that be will start scronging for money in any manner they can find?

  18. #18
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    The true point of the majority opinion...[ad nauseum hyperbole ommitted]
    Filtering out the vitriol from your rants is tiring. I won't fall down that rabbit hole again.

    I'll just leave it at this:
    Majority says this emminent domain action is lawfull under the Midkiff case authority. Kennedy refuses to make a bright line for forbidden actions, but outlines the issue at length.

    Minority (Sandy O'Connor) suggests that private to private ED transfers be limited to takings from "harmful use" owners only under Constitutional authority.

    I don't find either opinion particularly egregious, and agree that this may have been an appropriate time for judicial intervention, or "activism", if you must. The hyperbole and exaggerated, wildly speculative doomsday warnings of yours notwithstanding.

    You may be interested to know what Court previously tried to vacate Midkiff, and establish a bright line standard, exactly as Sandy (speaking for the minority decision you cling to here) suggests. It was the Ninth Circuit, who reversed Midkiff, only to be reversed by the Supremes, leaving Midkiff as the controlling law. Damned "activist" judges... can you believe the nerve of those crazy bastards????


    See Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229 (1984)


    Last edited by stant; 06-25-2005 at 05:06 AM.

  19. #19
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    I don't want this to degenerate into a vitriol fest either, but the basic point of this ruling is simply indisputable ...

    "“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,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority"

    As to the minority opinion's 'suggestion' that private property eminent domain takings later transferred to other private property owners be restricted in whatever manner is exactly that ... a 'suggestion' without force of law.

    Professor Bainbridge certainly makes legal observations much more authoritatively and eloquently than I can ...


    But perhaps the best communication of the principles behind the Supreme Court decision comes from the discourse itself ...

    "(snip) Wesley Horton represents the city of New London, and even before his to-scale chart comes out, it's clear that his enthusiasm for this development knows no bounds. He's a hopper, as well as a pointer, and he tends to chuckle at his own jokes. But he makes the point that this condemnation is no different than any of the innumerable ones that were deemed constitutionally sound in the past.

    Justice Antonin Scalia asks what difference it makes that New London is depressed. What if a city acknowledged that it wasn't doing badly, but just wanted to condemn land to attract new industry? He describes Horton's position as: "You can always take from A and give to B, so long as B is richer." And O'Connor offers this concrete example: What if there's a Motel 6 but the city thinks a Ritz-Carlton will generate more taxes? Is that OK?

    Yes, says Horton.

    "So you can always take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?" asks Scalia.

    "If they are significantly more taxes," says Horton

    "But that will always happen. Unless it's a firehouse or a school," protests Kennedy.

    Here is where O'Connor asks about the specific plans for the homes before the court, and Horton pulls out his Pareto-optimal town-planning schematic, and everyone on the bench briefly contemplates buying a new condo in Fort Trumbull, Conn.

    Justice Stephen Breyer asks why the courts cannot just demand some "reasonableness" standard for proposed "public use" projects. Horton says that standard is too high. Breyer points out that this is a "specific constitutional provision designed to protect minorities from the actions of majorities," and maybe a higher standard is warranted.

    "We're paying for it!" Horton exclaims, noting that no one is taking anything from these minorities.

    "But you're taking it from someone who doesn't want to sell. She doesn't want your money," retorts Scalia.

    And Kennedy muses that "it seems ironic that 100 percent of the premium for this new development goes to the developer and not the property owner" (who is entitled only to the "fair market value" of her home and not a share in the marina's future revenues). Breyer agrees that the real problem here isn't the "public use" issue but rather whether this represents just compensation.

    It doesn't look like the good folks of Fort Trumbull will garner many votes today at all—save for that of Justice Scalia, who channels the many libertarian amici in this case when he repeats that you can constitutionally condemn land and give it to a private entity—a railroad or public utility. "But you can't give it to a private corporation just because it might increase taxes."

    Horton replies that giving the people of New London jobs is just as important as giving them a railroad. (snip)"
    ... from


    And as to your contention about my use of 'scare tactics', others have gone much farther down this road than I (from NationalReviewOnline)...

    "If, as the Supreme Court has ruled, a locality may take property because other uses will generate more tax revenues and other benefits for the local community, then this makes all kinds of sense - I'd like to see the abortion clinic which generates tax revenues even 1/10th that of a Wal-Mart store. There's no ban on abortion here - and the owners of the clinic would be paid full market value for their property; but don't you just know that our liberal friends would scream bloody murder if we did this?

    You see, the fact that the four most liberal justices concurred in the Kelo decision indicates what it was really about - its not that they really wanted to transfer valuable real estate to private businesses (they'd probably have preferred that New London was taking the property in question to make a bird sanctuary, or homeless shelter or some such thing), but that they really hate private property and this was a nifty way for them to essentially terminate the right of Americans to own property. We should shove it right back at the liberals - make them overturn their own decision."


    ... all of which finally brings us to my REAL personal concern over the potential ramifications of this Supreme Court decision ... that various city goverments now have yet another weapon in their 'arsenal' to wield against strip clubs. I can't think of a single city council which would object to ANY developer offering to convert an existing strip club property into a more profitable mainstream business, 'officially' employing more people, and 'officially' generating more tax revenue. However, the Supreme Court ruling doesn't even require that the new developer actuallly produce more jobs or more tax revenue - all that is required is a promise to the city council which could easily never materialize after the fact. However, that city council's true purpose would be achieved ... i.e. the strip club would no longer be in business, with local zoning laws effectively preventing that strip club from reopening in another location.
    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 06-25-2005 at 06:52 AM.

  20. #20
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    I don't want this to degenerate into a vitriol fest either...
    Never.

    ...various city goverments now have yet another weapon in their 'arsenal' to wield against strip clubs

    Ahhh very clever....playing the "maligned stripper" card. Damn. That one always gets me.


    Bainbridge is a well known crank` , but at least he doesn't hide his agenda. His text on mergers and acquisitions is a real page turner, by the way. Could use a few more pictures, but rivetting doesn't begin to describe this fun book:
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

    edit: that slate link is a crack up. Very funny and well written. A highlight:
    After all, these justices aren't getting any younger and with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist out again today, and his usual replacement, John Paul Stevens, absent because of a canceled flight, we are down to just seven this morning. It's starting to look a bit like The Bachelor, Week 5.
    A classic Supreme Court moment. Hard to believe this doofuss won:
    Horton then concludes: "I have just four words this court should consider … but I'm not going to say them because I see my red light is on"
    Last edited by stant; 06-25-2005 at 07:32 AM.

  21. #21
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    Since, I'm coming late to the debate (been working a lot), there's very little I could add to what Melonie and Stant have mentioned. Personally, I disagree with the decision, I think the court should have interpreted the term "public use" very strictly and reigned in some of the new ways emminent domain is being used.

    Not to hijack the thread, but I did find this interesting:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
    ...Really, I was just addressing the notion that a "stronger Republican majority will do the right kind of judicial appointments." Clearly, that hasn't happened, at least from a Republican viewpoint.

    The Justices, the Presidents who appointed them and the President's party, listed in alphabetical order by last name (to avoid appearances of bias on my part):

    Stephen Breyer - Clinton (Democrat)
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton (Democrat)
    Anthony Kennedy - Reagan (Republican)
    Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan (Republican)
    William Rehnquist - Nixon (Republican)
    Antonin Scalia - Reagan (Republican)
    David Souter - Bush (Republican)
    John Paul Stevens - Ford (Republican)
    Clarence Thomas - Bush (Republican)

    By my count, that's 7 out of 9 that were placed there by Republicans. That's 77.7777777777(etc)%. Over three-quarters. I'd say the Republicans have had their chance to pack it.
    That's exactly what someone should expect. Liberal judges are much more inclined to go along with the idea that the constitution is, a living, breathing, thing; that it was meant to adapt to changing circumstances. To them the constitution is a set of ideas. Conservative judges, or "strict constructionists" see the constitution as set in stone, their key point being, what did the authors mean when they wrote it. To them, the constitution is a rule book and they are the referees.

    For this reason, a conservative justice is very hesitant to overturn a previous court decision, even one he or she feels was decided wrongly. We will likely be hearing a lot about Supreme Court nominations soon. I fully expect the pro-choice crowd to be loud and angry about the supposed threat to, "a woman's right to choose". Before anyone buys into that, they should take a look at JZ's list. It's been over 30 years since Roe v. Wade, and the Supreme Court hasn't come close to overturning it, despite being offered many chances to do so. As I said before, a truly conservative judge feels bound by precedent. In looking at potential court nominees, we should remember, that the very conservatism which many people oppose, actually makes them unlikely to engage in the very type of judicial activism many people seem to fear. I disagree with the court's decision, but it's hard to fault them for upholding previous decisions.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  22. #22
    Member
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    71
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by stant
    Filtering out the vitriol from your rants is tiring.
    Amen. I concur completely with that feeling about her posts here.

    And thankyou to both you Jay for debunking the blame the liberals comments with the actual facts.

    As for the Conn. case- I object to the land seizure in particular because the propsed development include condos which are obviously not public use such as a hotel.
    Last edited by Weekend Reports; 06-25-2005 at 01:43 PM.

  23. #23
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by Weekend Reports
    Thankyou Jay and Stant for debunking the blame the liberals comments with the actual facts.
    No problem. I lay blame equally, across the board. They're almost all posturers. The only people I don't lay blame on are people like communists and libertarians, and that's just because they can't get any votes to have the power to screw up like everyone else.

  24. #24
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    My kingdom for strict constructionist jurists...
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  25. #25
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Supreme Court sets another UnAmerican legal precedent

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    My kingdom for strict constructionist jurists...
    If only things were that simple. One man's "strict constructionist" is often another's "activist" and vice versa. Perhaps at one time that phrase had a modicum of meaning, but no longer. The far religious right has co-opted it as a self-righteous proclamation of Judiciary candidates and decisions that support their radical agenda, with little true historical or jurisprudence meaning.

    Take for example Scalia's astonishingly religious dissent to Souter's brilliant decision in McCreary today. He goes as far as citing political speeches as support for his ridiculous assertions that the United States should become a religious state, and abandon our misguided secular interpretations of the Constitution. I'm not joking. Read this nut's latest rant for yourself (p 39- ):

    http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050627mccreary.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by destiny
    ...As I said before, a truly conservative judge feels bound by precedent. In looking at potential court nominees, we should remember, that the very conservatism which many people oppose, actually makes them unlikely to engage in the very type of judicial activism many people seem to fear. I disagree with the court's decision, but it's hard to fault them for upholding previous decisions.
    "Strict Constuctionism" is the conservative's panacea to this inherent conflict between the doctrines of Stare Decisis (following precedent) and Judicial Intervention (reversing precedent) when the conservative cause du jour requires an inverventionist ruling. If upholding precedent is not aligned with their agenda, then claim "strict constructionism" or "original intent" as the alternate conservative theory. It's a grotesque oversimplification by sloganing complex issues. But it plays well on TV. And hate radio.

    By your definition, Scalia, Rhenquist, and Thomas are admitted Judicial activists. that might come as a surprise to their supporters. Of course God is one thier side, so they need not worry.
    Last edited by stant; 06-28-2005 at 12:20 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. MAJOR Financial Precedent set by Greek Court ...
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-05-2011, 06:48 PM
  2. Nevada Supreme Court ruling ...
    By Melonie in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-12-2006, 05:26 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-15-2005, 03:01 PM
  4. Supreme Court decision
    By Jay Zeno in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-30-2003, 03:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •