Bloomfield wrote:Notice that O'Connor, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas wanted to use vague and open-ended language in the federal constitution to take away the right of the states to govern their own affairs. But the state rights were protected from this blatant judicial activism by majority opinion (Stevens, Kennedy, Bader Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer), who basically decided that it is not the role of the federal judiciary to tell the states what they consider public use.
Call me paranoid, Bloo, but it seems to me that this sort of thing could have happened whether under the aegis of "states' rights" or not. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that state govenment poses a much more tractable entity than national government, at least when it comes to the lure of the pocket, for the state surely benefits. Not that I'm against states' rights, mind you. What appears to be happening --to my eye-- is something ultimately outside the state/federal arrangement. I would be highly surprised to learn that corporate influence had nothing to do with the ruling.
Then again, I'm not trained in law or economics. All I know is what it looks like.
missy wrote:Bloom - I understand your point - but wouldn't it have been more appropriate to NOT hear the case at all if it was state's rights that were being protected? By hearing the case, and making a ruling, the SC basically WAS sticking it's nose in.
You're right. My feeling on the case is that if you look at the facts of the particular development in New London, the decision arrived at is right. As to the larger implications, of course...
The point of my post is this though: There is this constant brash accusation of the federal courts and the Supreme Court in particular of trampling states rights, of the "liberal" judges being irresponsible, political activists on the bench an all that. Most of those accusations are nonsense in my opinon, and just a smoke screen for political disagreement: If you don't like the way the Supreme Court came out, its "judicial activism." But I don't hear anyone saying: I disagree with the court, I wish the court had been activist here, etc. etc.
Sorry if this is a bit too esoteric for general consumption. Carry on.
Bloomfield wrote:Notice that O'Connor, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas wanted to use vague and open-ended language in the federal constitution to take away the right of the states to govern their own affairs. But the state rights were protected from this blatant judicial activism by the majority opinion (Stevens, Kennedy, Bader Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer), who basically decided that it is not the role of the federal judiciary to tell the states what they consider public use.
But, if a state government decided to make such land grabs illegal in that state, wouldn't they get overturned in federal court on the basis of today's ruling?
Bloomfield wrote:Notice that O'Connor, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas wanted to use vague and open-ended language in the federal constitution to take away the right of the states to govern their own affairs. But the state rights were protected from this blatant judicial activism by majority opinion (Stevens, Kennedy, Bader Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer), who basically decided that it is not the role of the federal judiciary to tell the states what they consider public use.
Call me paranoid, Bloo, but it seems to me that this sort of thing could have happened whether under the aegis of "states' rights" or not. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that state govenment poses a much more tractable entity than national government, at least when it comes to the lure of the pocket, for the state surely benefits. Not that I'm against states' rights, mind you. What appears to be happening --to my eye-- is something ultimately outside the state/federal arrangement. I would be highly surprised to learn that corporate influence had nothing to do with the ruling.
Then again, I'm not trained in law or economics. All I know is what it looks like.
Look: My post was basically a parody of the constant and sickening litany about "activist judges" aiding and abetting the killing of Shiavo, letting the gays hump eachother in Texas, etc etc etc.
Just do me the favor and notice that the court can't get it right: It's always going to be criticized by someone or other. Think about that next time someone wants to tell you a scary tale of activist federal judges destroying states rights and selling us out in a million other ways.
BTW: I find that pretty lame of O'Connor to bash "corporate interests." What are those exactly? That's just pandering to popular prejudice and sentiment. When exactly is a corporation good and when is it bad? And if it is legal in this country to run and own a corporation, when does it start becoming an evil "corporate interest"? And how many of you have stock of these "corporate interests" in your 401Ks?
jsluder wrote:But, if a state government decided to make such land grabs illegal in that state, wouldn't they get overturned in federal court on the basis of today's ruling?
No.
Care to elaborate? If a state wanted to make it illegal but a city took the state to court (or vice versa), why couldn't this ruling be used as precedent to favor the land grab? (Serious question. I'm not very educated in legal matters, so I fully realize I could be asking ignorant questions.)
Giles: "We few, we happy few."
Spike: "We band of buggered."
jsluder wrote:But, if a state government decided to make such land grabs illegal in that state, wouldn't they get overturned in federal court on the basis of today's ruling?
No.
Care to elaborate? If a state wanted to make it illegal but a city took the state to court (or vice versa), why couldn't this ruling be used as precedent to favor the land grab? (Serious question. I'm not very educated in legal matters, so I fully realize I could be asking ignorant questions.)
Sorry for being cryptic. I haven't read the ruling yet, but from what I understand from the press is that the court held today that "public use" in the takings clause includes cases in which the land will not be owned by the state (or a municipality), say as a road or a school, but also cases in which the land will be taken and then given to a private owner under some economic development plan. The only "public use" here is infrastructure, revitalization, and tax revenue. What it means is that your private property right in your house does not give you the constitutional right to stop a taking that is for a non-traditional "public use" instead of for a traditional one (like a road or a school). It does not mean that the state or municipalities have to take land when it's not a traditional public use. It doesn't mean that the state can't forbid taking for non-traditional public uses. It only means that the owner of the land doesn't have a federal constitutional right against it.
Say a minor sues his or her parents, claiming a constituional right not to be spanked in discipline. The Supreme Court rules that the minor does not have a constituional right to be free from spanking. That does not mean that states can't make laws prohibiting corporal punishment (as many have done). Spanking parents would then violate state law, but not the federal constitution.
HTH
Last edited by Bloomfield on Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ostensibly, it is "for the greater common good", but it is often part of an agenda that means big financial gains for those in line for the jobs. My brother and his wife were forced to sell their home to the city so that a roadway could be built that put the intersection through a corner of their yard. They were paid market value, but that's not the point. They *had* do so. No choice but to take the forced sale or lose completely.
Bad karma in the making.
Many people in our area had to sell their farm property so that a lake could be expanded into a big tourist attraction. It hasn't exactly proven to be a big generator of income tough. Sure, many people do enjoy it, but 'necessary'? Probably not.
I remember a song about it. back in the 70 or 80s - the "Imminent, Eminent Domain Blues" or some such.
anniemcu
--- "You are what you do, not what you claim to believe." -Gene A. Statler
--- "Olé to you, none-the-less!" - Elizabeth Gilbert
--- http://www.sassafrassgrove.com
Bloomfield wrote:Notice that O'Connor, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas wanted to use vague and open-ended language in the federal constitution to take away the right of the states to govern their own affairs. But the state rights were protected from this blatant judicial activism by majority opinion (Stevens, Kennedy, Bader Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer), who basically decided that it is not the role of the federal judiciary to tell the states what they consider public use.
Call me paranoid, Bloo, but it seems to me that this sort of thing could have happened whether under the aegis of "states' rights" or not. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that state govenment poses a much more tractable entity than national government, at least when it comes to the lure of the pocket, for the state surely benefits. Not that I'm against states' rights, mind you. What appears to be happening --to my eye-- is something ultimately outside the state/federal arrangement. I would be highly surprised to learn that corporate influence had nothing to do with the ruling.
Then again, I'm not trained in law or economics. All I know is what it looks like.
Look: My post was basically a parody of the constant and sickening litany about "activist judges" aiding and abetting the killing of Shiavo, letting the gays hump eachother in Texas, etc etc etc.
Just do me the favor and notice that the court can't get it right: It's always going to be criticized by someone or other. Think about that next time someone wants to tell you a scary tale of activist federal judges destroying states rights and selling us out in a million other ways.
BTW: I find that pretty lame of O'Connor to bash "corporate interests." What are those exactly? That's just pandering to popular prejudice and sentiment. When exactly is a corporation good and when is it bad? And if it is legal in this country to run and own a corporation, when does it start becoming an evil "corporate interest"? And how many of you have stock of these "corporate interests" in your 401Ks?
Do I sound like Weekenders inside-out, or what?
As a matter of fact, yes!
Well, I'm just an average Joe with a deep mistrust of government in all its forms, AND of corporate power. As to determining good or bad, I look to the actions of corporations, government, and individuals: I don't think it's wrong to consider consequences to the private citizen by that measure. I think the "greater good" is just as vague and subject to interminable argument as "corporate interest". I tend to side with the little guy in these things. If that's popular prejudice and sentiment, I guess I'm guilty as charged.
Bloomfield wrote:Say a minor sues his or her parents, claiming a constituional right not to be spanked in discipline. The Supreme Court rules that the minor does not have a constituional right to be free from spanking. That does not mean that states can't make laws prohibiting corporal punishment (as many have done). Spanking parents would then violate state law, but not the federal constitution.
HTH
Yes, that did help. Thanks.
Giles: "We few, we happy few."
Spike: "We band of buggered."
Bloomfield wrote: When exactly is a corporation good and when is it bad? And if it is legal in this country to run and own a corporation, when does it start becoming an evil "corporate interest"?
When it merges with government. The original definition of fascism, according to the man who invented the term, would better be described as "corporatism," (the merging of corporations and government.) When Sandra refers to "corporate interests" she might be talking about how the corporations are now gaining the power of government enforcement over matters involving private citizens. This legislation alters the concept of Eminent Domain to be for the benefit of corporate interests rather than public interests. Government is supposed to represent the latter, not the former, isn’t it?
Heavens! Horrifying and appalling don't begin to describe it! Why even bother to pretend there are such things as private property rights anymore?
Sara
'I wish it need not have happend in my time,' said Frodo.
'So do I,' said Gandalf, 'and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.'
A large chain store was not wanted in my home town so they built it right outside the city limits. The City (realizing that they had lost) expanded the city limits to include them. I would love to see the city Claim eminent domain and bulldoze the place.
It will never happen, but it would be nice.
Just thought I would add, in our current democracy, you vote with every dollar you spend.
"Be not deceived by the sweet words of proverbial philosophy. Sugar of lead is a poison."
jGilder wrote:
Yep... this is what happens in a corporate democracy -- the money wins. The US is basically becoming just one big Wal-Mart now.
Omigosh, Jack and I agree on something. Well, mostly anyway. It has nothing to do with "corporate democracy" (whatever that's supposed to be). Money eventually wins in any socio-political system - the only question is how long it takes.
John
-------
The Internet is wonderful. Surely there have always been thousands of people deeply concerned about my sex life and the quality of my septic tank but before the Internet I never heard from any of them.
jGilder wrote:It has nothing to do with "corporate democracy" (whatever that's supposed to be).
By “corporate democracy” is that it functions on behalf of corporate interests. About 100 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court decreed that corporations are to be considered persons under the law. They can enjoy the basic rights of individuals under the constitution, but they can influence government in ways that most citizens can't. They can buy candidates and votes, and they control mainstream media and can influence and manipulate public opinion. This puts the average American at an extreme disadvantage. The result is that we now have a government that represents corporations and their interests instead. Sure it's a democracy... sort of, but it's not functioning on behalf of the common person.
OutOfBreath wrote:Money eventually wins in any socio-political system - the only question is how long it takes.
Sara
