Recent Supreme Court Ruling

[Utah]

[ 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?

[jackdaniels]

[ 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] )

[ACPlayer]

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.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

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.

[BCPVP]

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.

[elwoodblues]

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?

[ACPlayer]

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]

[Felix_Nietsche]

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.

[ 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?

[TomCollins]

[ 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?