Poetic Justice for Supreme Court Justice?

[ACPlayer]

YOu are grasping.

It does not give the private parties greenlight for anything. The private party can always propose a project, the decision to invoke eminent domain is by the elected officials. The decision by the elected official can still be challenged in court. If the public officials say the private plan has merit and the courts agree that it meets the test of a carefully crafted plan for public use, then yes your house is toast.

Elect good officials. Make sure they nominate good judges, ensure that the nomination process is sound with plenty of checks and balances (and then add a few filibusters).

Democracy at work. Enjoy it while it lasts.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
It does not give the private parties greenlight for anything. The private party can always propose a project, the decision to invoke eminent domain is by the elected officials.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the difference in practice?

[ QUOTE ]
The decision by the elected official can still be challenged in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

For all practical purposes, this is not true. Sure, you can go to court, but since the SCOTUS says the local officals get to define "public use" or whatever as they see fit, you've got zero chance.

[ QUOTE ]
If the public officials say the private plan has merit and the courts agree that it meets the test of a carefully crafted plan for public use, then yes your house is toast.

Elect good officials. Make sure they nominate good judges, ensure that the nomination process is sound with plenty of checks and balances (and then add a few filibusters).

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd rather give absolute power to a small group of people, then let them bulldoze your house, then "kick the bums out" instead of just not letting them destroy your house in the first place? Obviously, the important thing in your mind is the state's ability to dominate the citizens when the state sees fit. You are just hoping for the best with your "elect good people" strategy. I've got news for you, bud. The state is not more important than the people.

[ACPlayer]

You are wrong. Once the state is elected the state has more power then the people for as long as the state is in power.

The key is to elect good officials and MAKE SURE THE JUDICIARY IS INDEPENDENT of political affiliations.

Sure, you can go to court, but since the SCOTUS says the local officals get to define "public use" or whatever as they see fit, you've got zero chance.

I dont read the decision as you did. Any taking can still be challenged and has plenty of chances of being reversed if the use is not "carefully considered" and is not part of plan.

Remember nothing in the SCOTUS decision prevents your town from outlawing this type of taking. This is where the decision belongs in your town. You want to be safe, elect officials who will change your local laws.

[slamdunkpro]

BUZZZZ!

[ QUOTE ]
Remember nothing in the SCOTUS decision prevents your town from outlawing this type of taking.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG!
It’s called a precedent, - if you challenge your town or cities ruling they can tie you up in court all the way back to the SCOTUS. Because of the SCOTUS decision you’ll lose at every appellant level and since the SCOTUS is loath to go back and revisit let alone reverse one of their previous rulings, you’d most likely lose there too if they even agreed to hear your case.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
You are wrong. Once the state is elected the state has more power then the people for as long as the state is in power.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said the people are more important. You're justifying government thuggery by saying that the government has power, therefore it's right for them to use that power. It's a circular argument.



[ QUOTE ]
I dont read the decision as you did. Any taking can still be challenged and has plenty of chances of being reversed if the use is not "carefully considered" and is not part of plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me one example of emminent domain that was not "carefully considered" and part of a plan. How does having a plan make it right? Just because nine old fogeys said so? Are you so impressed with authority that you give respect to anyone that claims it?

[ QUOTE ]
Remember nothing in the SCOTUS decision prevents your town from outlawing this type of taking. This is where the decision belongs in your town. You want to be safe, elect officials who will change your local laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

So because some local governments *might* choose to NOT abuse this decision, it's OK? Sorry about your house, you should have moved to somewhere else. Hey, everyone else in this town hates blondes and wants to take all their land. The majority has spoken, you have no right to complain, you should have elected someone who's not a thug. Wow, I feel better.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
You are wrong. Once the state is elected the state has more power then the people for as long as the state is in power.

...

You want to be safe, elect officials who will change your local laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's get it out in the open... do you think there should be ANY limits on government power? So far, your arguments have been along the lines of "they're in charge, too bad for you, you should have elected someone who's not a sociopath." Should the government be able to arbitrarily shoot people in the head if they have a "plan"? Hey, too bad, you elected the wrong guy. Here's the bill for the bullet, too.

Does the government have carte blanche to do whatever it wants just by virtue of being elected? You seem to see the Constitution as a nusiance at best and as a warrant authorizing absolute power at worst. The constitution was intended explicitly to limit governmnet power, which you seem to think is an unworthy pursuit.

[ACPlayer]

do you think there should be ANY limits on government power?

Yes. Plenty.

So far, your arguments have been along the lines of "they're in charge, too bad for you, you should have elected someone who's not a sociopath." Should the government be able to arbitrarily shoot people in the head if they have a "plan"?

That is what you want to hear. You are making emotion driven statements and sounding like a nut.


Does the government have carte blanche to do whatever it wants just by virtue of being elected?

No.

You seem to see the Constitution as a nusiance at best and as a warrant authorizing absolute power at wors

Hardly. The constitution is all important. However, I realize that the words are vague at best and subject to interpretation.

If you cannot understand that your rights have not really been diminished by this decision you are not thinking straight. Your rights are exactly the same as they were yesterday in this regard.

Like I said before, this decision appears to be a reasonable one. If it had gone the other way, would I be worked up about it -- No. I do however realize that a) the weakness in democracy is that the elected official has a lot of power during his term b) these decisions are best made by the local government and c) local government needs leeway to provide for the greater good (that is after all why we vote for them) and sometimes people get hurt and d) we need a good independent judiciary.

If you really think that a local government can take Souters house for a hotel project the you seem to have fallen for the line of the fear mongers with political agendas that say everybodies house is now threatened. That is hogwash and this decision does not in anyway appear to say that.

Anyway, II dont think you can see straight on this. So, you are on your own.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
That is what you want to hear. You are making emotion driven statements and sounding like a nut.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are the one that is hearing what he wants to hear. You're adding emotion where there is none, and doing so in an attempt to discredit me.


[ QUOTE ]
The constitution is all important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. The constitution is just a piece of paper. It doesn't have any magic power that grants rights to you. It does limit the power of government, though it does not limit or grant rights to the people. You seem to think it's OK for the government to ignore the restrictions placed on it, though, which means you think the constitution isn't important. You say that you support limits on government power, but your arguments give away your true feelings.


[ QUOTE ]
If you cannot understand that your rights have not really been diminished by this decision you are not thinking straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, where did I make that statement? The government has already been stealing from the people before this decision, and they will continue to after it. The problem with this decision is that the SCOTUS has lowered the bar and made it easier to abuse the emminent domain power, one that is illegitimate to begin with.


[ QUOTE ]
Your rights are exactly the same as they were yesterday in this regard.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct, because the SCOTUS does not determine what my rights are. The government may now violate my rights more than they did before.


[ QUOTE ]
b) these decisions are best made by the local government

[/ QUOTE ]

All decisions at the tactical level are better made by local government (than by the federal government). That doesn't mean that this power is one that the local government should have, or that those local governments should get greater leeway in using it than they had before.

[ QUOTE ]
c) local government needs leeway to provide for the greater good (that is after all why we vote for them) and sometimes people get hurt

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep saying this as if it were an axiom. it's not. Government needs restriction, not leeway.


[ QUOTE ]
If you really think that a local government can take Souters house for a hotel project the you seem to have fallen for the line of the fear mongers with political agendas that say everybodies house is now threatened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why couldn't they? If there is a "carefully considered" plan and it will generate more tax revenue than a residence, what's going to stop them? Good conscience? That seems to be the only speed bump.

Stop with the condescending red herrings and give us some specifics.

[ACPlayer]

Here is a thought experiment for you.

First put aside your emotion about losing your home to a runaway legislature.

Now consider that you are a judge at the state level in New Hanpshire. A Mr Souter has come before you appealing the taking of his house for a hotel. The city is citing Kelo. You ask for a "carefully considered" development plan as called for by Kelo and are given a statement showing that the hotel will generate additional property taxes to the tune of whatever.

Now as the judge you compare the scope and background of the plan in Kelo vs this plan. Do you really think you would rule for the City citing Kelo?

Now, I am not interested in your answer (unless you are a lawyer), but you should consider it carefully.

As a lay person trying to evaluate this, I believe that a judge would consider the Souter taking not covered by Kelo and would rule for the plaintiff and I believe, based on reading the decisions in Kelo, that THIS suprement court would agree with this.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
As a lay person trying to evaluate this, I believe that a judge would consider the Souter taking not covered by Kelo and would rule for the plaintiff and I believe, based on reading the decisions in Kelo, that THIS suprement court would agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's the difference between you and me. You are putting your faith in the government not to screw you over, whereas I would prefer not to give them the option to begin with. Sorry, the "belief" that the current authorities won't do it doesn't guarantee that they (or the next ones) won't. I'm pretty sure the people in Ohio who are getting booted "believed" that some sane person somewhere along the line would stop this and they'd never actually be out on the street, but you can see how much that belief helped them now.