Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

Take my house, please

Am I the only one really bothered by this ruling?

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

I just read this article and I must say, this is a sad day for the US of A.

The reason for this ruling? "Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said." What happened to: "This is MY PROPERTY and I know best what I want done with it"??? What does the ownership of private property have anything to do with the "benefit of the community"??? Now that eminent domain has been expanded to include the "vision" of local government (coupled with the interests of connected businesses), we are likely to see more of this sort of thing.

Again, a sad day for the US of A.

One of Many Unconstitutional Rulings
 

This is what happens when liberals appoint activist judges. They ignore the constitution, consult foreign law which agrees with their pre-conceived oppinions, and then they make their unconstitutional rulings.

Some of their worst decisions are:
McCain-Feingold = Full frontal assault on political speech 30/60 days before an election.
Medical Marijuana = The Death of the 10th amendment and an illegal application of the interstate commerce clause.

Did you notice is was EVILLLLLLL conservative judges who largely opposed these rulings? I doubt Marijuana activists are going to lobby for another 'Clarence Thomas' to be appointed to the supreme court.

Re: One of Many Unconstitutional Rulings
 

You should drop your partisan blinders and act like a normal human being once in awhile.

I would go show how when Bush pushed to have the stadium built in Texas, they used the courts to force people out of their property for the sake of his business.

But what would the point be? Nothing gets past your blinders.

Re: One of Many Unconstitutional Rulings
 

As a card-carrying liberal and Mass Democrat, I have to agree w/ Felix. This ruling (and McCain Feingold, and the Medical Marihuana ruling) are activist, unconstitutional rulings. But the worst thing about this is that it has been going on for at least ten years. I report on construction projects, and I can tell you this happens ALL THE TIME, the city will decide that it is in their best interest to have a retail mall, or a wal-mart in many cases, and take peoples homes by eminent domain to give to the private developer. Often this involves some sort of payment to the city by the developer, as if it wasn't shady enough. Retail developers don't like to talk about this way of getting property as they know it is bad PR, but it is more and more common w/ every large development. This is a pet peeve of mine, I think it is disgusting.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

I started to post this link and saw you beat me to it. This is sickening. Only in extreme cases do I support what's happening here. (e.g. a multi-million dollar highway project halted by someone who is just being stubborn) This, though, is totally repulsive. These people should be able to do whatever they want with their property. Ironically, I usually side with public officials when private residents start bitching about a city project that they don't want near their neighborhood, or when they complain about zoning and whatnot. I say if you on the land, do what you please.

Re: One of Many Unconstitutional Rulings
 

I would go show how when Bush pushed to have the stadium built in Texas, they used the courts to force people out of their property for the sake of his business.
************************************************** *****
I am against this supreme court ruling. It is 100% unconstitutional.
As for Bush, you are referring to the new Texas Ranger baseball stadium. An intitiative was put on the ballot and the voters of Arlington voted to increase the city's sales tax to pay for the stadium. If you have evidence that Bush43 used courts to force people to sell their property against their will to build this stadium then please provide the links. Living in Texas, I read the local papers and I can recall no stories of people going to court being forced to sell they property against their will.
I SUSPECT you have no links showing this and are letting your emotional dislike for Bush rule your mind.

On a side note, I'm against public financing for these stadiums. Ticket prices go up and so do the players salaries. It is a gimic to allow wealthy owners to have more money to buy high price players. Other ball teams, that want to stay competitive, then apeal to their voters for their own stadium. It is analogous to a military arms race.

On another side note, Bush has done MULTIPLE things I disagree with (Terry Sciavo, internet gambling, medical marijuana, drug bill, farm bill, 'education' bill, not vetoing McCain-Feingold, etc...)

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

It's one thing to confiscate property to build a new highway/city hall/actual government use.

It's quite another to give it to Wal-mart, Jerry Jones, etc...

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

How long is it before somebody's family house in a scenic area is confiscated for a rich person holiday home?

Seriously, if local government (who I equate with Boss Hogg) are allowed to abuse their powers for "economic development" then it's only a matter of time.

I mean letting Bill Gates bulldoze some ridiculously stubborn schmuck's home in Colorado and build a mansion would do more for the economy than a mall.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

I absolutely hate the result of this ruling and the impending abuse that will follow. However, I have less trouble with the logic.

It sounds to be like they are saying, "we are not in the business of deteriming what is truly a public interest. We will leave that to the states to determine".

If you dont like how your state is run then vote them out.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's one thing to confiscate property to build a new highway/city hall/actual government use.

It's quite another to give it to Wal-mart, Jerry Jones, etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

What nonesense is this???? How can you posit that one instance is moraly superior to the other (with a str8 face that is - maybe my sarcasm detector needs new batteries). There is NO ethical way to FORCE someone off their property against their will.

Just so it is put out there (hopefully not for the first time):

Any and all interactions between individuals that aren't based on agreement (i.e. - are based on force) - are ethically repugnant. The fact that the gov't, with it's monopoly on the use of force, is the one actually facilitating this transaction - makes it even more sickening.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

We didn't like how southern states treated blacks, because it violated thier basic rights. So we forced them to change through civil rights acts. This legislation violates basic property rights, which should be protected just as civil rights were protected.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
We didn't like how southern states treated blacks, because it violated thier basic rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well of course that sounds good. And of course, it made alot of economic sense for the Northern States (or rather non slave states) ruling elites.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

If you think civil rights legislation was a bad thing, if you believe there aren't basic human rights that must be respected, then I don't think we have a framework by which to debate. We are starting from entirely different core beliefs.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

I think our core beliefs maybe somewhat similar. I misread your initial post. I apolagize.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

If you think these two situations are exactly the same, then I'd imagine that a petty criminal and mass murderer are the same in your book as well.

I'm not thrilled about eminent domain in cases for "legitimate" uses, so long as it is strictly controlled, and property owners are fairly compensated. There is a huge difference in playing SimCity, building and destroying for any purpose at all.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
I absolutely hate the result of this ruling and the impending abuse that will follow. However, I have less trouble with the logic.

It sounds to be like they are saying, "we are not in the business of deteriming what is truly a public interest. We will leave that to the states to determine".

If you dont like how your state is run then vote them out.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if the state has a majority that wants to take away the property or even imprision a minority, its fine. Since if it was wrong, we should just vote them out.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you think these two situations are exactly the same, then I'd imagine that a petty criminal and mass murderer are the same in your book as well.

I'm not thrilled about eminent domain in cases for "legitimate" uses, so long as it is strictly controlled, and property owners are fairly compensated. There is a huge difference in playing SimCity, building and destroying for any purpose at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what kind of petty criminal you are reffering to, but I will say this - "right of way" (eminent domain) has been in effect for a while now and this development is simply the natural progression of a bad law. To discuss which portion of this bad law is "worse" (forcing you out of your property so that the government can build a new building there or so that walmart can do the same) - is neither productive nor necessary, the fact remains that the law, at its core, is trampling on property rights in one of the worlds only states where the term (property rights) still means something. You also refer to some sort of "fair" compensation. What you might think is fair isn't what the owner thinks is fair - thus, when dealing with others it is only appropriate to do so via mutual aggreement, any other way (your "fair" compensation refference) leads to one thing and one thing only - the eradication of personal rights and liberties.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

Taking property through eminent domain has been practiced for decades. Without this ability, most large urban infrastructure projects like the construction of highways and subway systems would have been impossible. To view the right of private property as absolutely sacrosanct is just another foolish mantra that has little relation to any historical practice in modern societies.

So essentially the ruling here concerns whether eminent domain can be applied when it is a private development. I think this is probably a bad idea, as it opens up the door to obvious abuses of interest. The court's rationale that it was ok as long as the seizure wasn't strictly for the benefit of the private developer indicates an amazing naivete concerning what private developers do, which is often to sell government a line of bullshit about public interest in order to enrich themselves.

Here is the ironic thing, however, which is the really the main point. The fact that this issue has come up can be directly related to the general shrinking of the state's role in public development and investment, a downsizing that is right in line with market-oriented perspectives on political economy. But the state never really goes away, since that is how complex societies with complex economies work. Therefore, the state is still involved, only now, with a lesser role, it is involved in such a way as to lead to more possible abuse, generally by powerful private interests over weaker ones. Yet another example of less state involvement leading to more abuses and, really, a worse functioning market economy.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

Example 1)

Someone shoplifts a candy bar.
Someone else murders 25 people.

Both are wrong. One is obviously worse.

Example 2)
City uses eminent domain to buy houses to build a highway.
City uses eminent domain to buy land to sell to Wal-Mart.

Are both wrong? Debatable. But one is clearly more wrong than another.

I'm trying to be pragmatic. If there was no eminent domain, no roads would ever get expanded. Highways would not exist. Yeah, it sucks to be forced to sell your property, but chances are a lot less likely that you have corruption and a battle of who can win government favors in this case than in others.

You are forcing a choice between anarchy and authoritarianism. There is a reasonable choice besides this, a LIMITED government.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
We didn't like how southern states treated blacks, because it violated thier basic rights. So we forced them to change through civil rights acts.

[/ QUOTE ]
The taking of property for public good is well established. It sounds like the court said that it wasnt the best place to determine whether it was in the public good.

The decision has to be made somewhere. Why would you rather have the federal judiciary make that decision rather that the accountable local government?

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are forcing a choice between anarchy and authoritarianism. There is a reasonable choice besides this, a LIMITED government.


[/ QUOTE ]

My choice would be for limited government, but not limited in thesense you are describng. Why is it that when the gvrnment wants to build a road or a school or anythin else for that matter - you think that forcefully taking someone elses property is ok, while if a private enterprise does the same (build a toll road, a private school etc...) - it suddenly becomes wrong? It is wrong in both cases and the solution is simple - make a deal with the current owner or reocate your project elsewhere. If you want to do the right thing, that is the only way. Forcig someone to sell in order to satisfy the pragmatic solution de jure is simply a manifestation of "might makes right". Just be careful tomorrows "mighty" don't decide it's in the "public interest" or simply "pragmatic" to violate some of your other rights (i.e. "innocent till proven guilty? That just isn't pragmatic in this day and age of terrorism - better err on the side of caution and arrest/question them all" - oops! has this been happening already? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] )

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

This is absolutely correct. THis cannot be viewed as an activist ruling.

From the news reports, the Supreme COurt basically said this is a political issue and must be resolved by the local governments duly elected by the local peoples. Dont look to the courts to decide public policy.

Once again, I applaud the judges in making this careful conservative ruling. The minority judges on this court continue to show their reactionary rather than their alleged conservative biases.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

Am I the only one really bothered by this ruling?

Trust me, you aren't. This makes 2 straight decisions (including the Medical Marijuana case) where it's the liberal justices trampling on freedom.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

Boy, I see two problems.
On the one hand, the general logic of the decision is ok; i.e. that local gov'ts would be better at deciding decisions at that level, as opposed to the federal judiciary. Never mind that now is a strange time for The Court to become so federalistic, with regards to previous rulings.

On the other hand, this does open the door for gov'ts to take land from people and reward businesses. I'm kinda torn on this issue, as my dad and his dad both by right-of-way for the county I live in. IMO, when gov'ts use "eminent domain" to boot residents so business can move in, all I see is the business booting out the residents. The gov't is just a middleman, who takes his cut.

I think you're wrong, AC. I think it's clear that reason the minority voted the way they did (as evidenced by O'Conner's dissent), was because they didn't want to set a precedent that businesses abusing the government's power of eminent domain is legal, not because they think that the federal judiciary should decide such matters.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

I know that Utah was basically making this point as well, but let me just expand on it a bit.

Why do good conservatives think that this is best decided by federal courts? Who is in a best position to know the local needs?

Further, why is this a federal question to begin with? The Fifth Amendment deals with eminent domain, but doesn't that Amendment just apply to federal takings? "Wait," you say "what about the 14th Amendment?" I think there's a pretty good/logical argument that the eminent domain provision of the 5th Amendment cannot logically be included in the Due Process clause of the 14th.

There is a long-standing rule of constitutional (and statutory) interpretation that basically says that the language of the constitution is all important and there are no superfluous clauses. There is also a rule of interpretation that says that the same language used in multiple places should have the same meaning. Okay, how is that important here, you ask (okay, maybe you didn't, but I'm having too much fun to stop now.)


Relevant text of the 5th Amendment:
[ QUOTE ]
No person shall ...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not that the Due Process clause and the eminent domain clause (i.e. the taking of private property...) are two separate clauses. Thus, they must have different meanings (or else the Framers wouldn't have included the eminent domain clause, they would have just included the Due Process Clause.)

Now, when the 14th Amendment says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" we might not know exactly what state action taking property without due process would be, but we know FOR SURE that it isn't eminent domain because the same language used earlier in the Constitution establishes that the clauses have two different meanings.

So, my question to my friends who support limited federal roles in local matters and a strict interpretation of the constitution is: why is this a federal question at all?

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

Hi Elwoodblues,

Can you educate us here a bit?

If there is a state case that has the appearance of violating a US Constitutional precept, is that not eligible for Supreme Court Review. From my limited knowledge it would seem that questioning whether the New London taking was constitutional is valid for the SCOTUS.

It is my impression from the news reports that the judges favoring the New London position examined the specifics of the case and found that the plan was clearly designed for public good (how they decide that is a bit scary, I suppose) as opposed to an apparent plan to benefit a private party.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do good conservatives think that this is best decided by federal courts? Who is in a best position to know the local needs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, many on this forum are results oriented, rather than principle oriented. No wonder poker games are so good. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

A Yahoo Has Just Fallen Off the Turnip Truck
 

Why do good conservatives think that this is best decided by federal courts? Who is in a best position to know the local needs?
**************************************************
HUH???? Did you just fall off the turnip truck?

It was the liberal judges who voted to support this.
Once again Clarence Thomas led the charge in the dissent.

I think being liberal blinds you to the fact it is DEMOCRATICALLY appointed judges who vote to expand federal power. Occasional a conservative judge strays (Scalia in the Medical Marijuana case) but it is conservative judges like Clarence Thomas who voted to support the states in the Medical Marijuana case and in this case.

Re: A Yahoo Has Just Fallen Off the Turnip Truck
 

[ QUOTE ]
but it is conservative judges like Clarence Thomas who voted to support the states in the Medical Marijuana case and in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

A post that's not spelled like the name of a Quiet Riot song. Congratulations.

Now to the substance, very briefly:

1. The majority decided that it should be left to the states to decide how the power of eminent domain should be used.

2. The dissent's position is that states do not have the power to take property via eminent domain in circumstances such as those presented in the subject case.

Reasonable people certainly can take the position that today's decision is the wrong one. But to say that it was the dissent that "supported" the states is ridiculous.

Are you aware that local government groups such as the National League of Cities submitted amicus briefs in support of the position of New London?

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
No person shall ...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use , without just compensation.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is looting for Wal-Mart public use?

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

How can any court assert eminent domain for a private corporation?

Re: A Yahoo Has Just Fallen Off the Turnip Truck
 

Bush really pisses me off, but its cases like these that I'm really glad we don't have President Gore/Kerry putting new justices on the supreme court.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
If there is a state case that has the appearance of violating a US Constitutional precept, is that not eligible for Supreme Court Review

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, so long as there is a federal question. My point is that a STATE taking private property does not implicate the federal prohibition found in the constitution because that provision only applies to federal takings.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

If the Fifth amendment's eminent domain clause applied to the states you would have a good argument. My argument is that it is an expansion of federal power to suggest that it applies to the states through the 14th Amendment.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the Fifth amendment's eminent domain clause applied to the states you would have a good argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

It most assuredly does. Please re-read the 14th amendment.

[ QUOTE ]
My argument is that it is an expansion of federal power to suggest that it applies to the states through the 14th Amendment.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were to claim this in 1870, perhaps you would be correct.

Re: A Yahoo Has Just Fallen Off the Turnip Truck
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think being liberal blinds you to the fact it is DEMOCRATICALLY appointed judges who vote to expand federal power.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think you are understanding the case or the interplay between the local action and the federal law. The majority is leaving the decision to the states (or more precisely to the locality.) Whether the state makes a bad decision is irrelevant to whether the federal government should be telling the states what to do. The dissent (signed by the conservatives on the court) wants the federal courts to be able to tell your local government what to do.

I think you are looking at the taking and saying that is too much government power. Because you like "smaller government" you aren't concerned about which government (local, state, federal) is doing the acting, you just want smaller government in general.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

Why doesn't the right to a grand jury apply to the states through the 14th Amendment. It doesn't, in part, do to the fact that it is a specifically enumerated right in the 5th Amendment which definitionally precludes it from the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Essentially the 5th Amendment says you have A, B, C, D and E rights against the federal government. The 14th Amendment says you have B rights. It is illogical to conclude the A, C, D and E are a subset of B or else they would never have been in the 5th Amendment in the first place (as it would be duplicative of just saying that you have due process rights)

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

The argument (which I think is pretty damn weak) is that broadening (or diversifying or whatever) the tax base is a legitimate public purpose and therefore takings are allowed. Note that the 5th Amendment (assuming it applies to state takings) only provides that it has to be for a public purpose.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

then maybe they need to pay triple the apprasied price when they take your property for a non public entity. maybe they should pay that all the time to make it fair. and then when they assert domain it will be for essential projects.

Re: Recent Supreme Court Ruling
 

Are you saying that because the fourteenth amendment does not explicitly call out: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" therefore there is nothing in the consitution to prevent a state from doing whatever with private property without subject to US constitutional review.

I suppose the state constitution would then decide if there was a state level violation.