Supreme Court Rules Private Property Can be Seized 1829
slew writes "CNN is reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case where a local community seized private houses for commercial development (not public works) under the guise of eminent domain. Needless to say, the little guy loses to the commercial developer this case...
"
All your homes are... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:All your homes are... (Score:5, Funny)
1. Create new Funny Inside Joke moderation
2. filter out the jokes.
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
Re:All your homes are... (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree that "All your ${BASE} belong ..." jokes have become very cliche, there is a point about humor to cover the impact of bad news. I believe Lewis Black said it best:
Laugh, Life's a joke.
pwn3d (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:pwn3d (Score:5, Insightful)
-Peter
Re:pwn3d (Score:5, Insightful)
The principle that has been established is that you own your land unless the government can think of a purpose for your land that would suit what they identify as the higher economic good. That's called expropriation [google.com].
Expropriation is bad, mmmkay?
Re:pwn3d (Score:4, Insightful)
They are turning the Constitution's wording ("except for public use") into their own wording ("except for public benefit").
ick
Re:pwn3d (Score:4, Insightful)
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Woot!!! (Score:5, Funny)
While this is disturbing as hell... (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps the ruling applies to online property as well - though the major companies generally try to invoke the DMCA for that (Microsoft vs. Mike Rowe, et cetera). That would make it relevant.
Aarghhh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Aarghhh. (Score:3, Insightful)
As a libertarian, I tend to say "fuck off" to government when it wants to curtail my liberties in the interest of the public good, even when I believe that interest might actually be served. But that aside, the court may have been right in finding commercial development MAY in some cases fall within the defin
Re:Aarghhh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Please surrender your membership card at the door. Thank you.
Re:Aarghhh. (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, the ruling today has decided that being in the 'public good' is simply a matter of being 'generally kind of better than what was there before, maybe' (although specifically, they find that there is no burden on the developer to ensure that the 'public good' is ever actually realized).
Basically, private property owners like you and me get the shaft when developers decide they can do something more publicly beneificial with our land than we can. Totally nuts.
Re:Aarghhh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Aarghhh. (Score:5, Insightful)
This point is made by the majority, and nicely refuted by the dissent. The problem is that the people most likely to be hurt by this ruling are the poor and uneducated, who have much less access to and influence over the political process. On the other hand the people who benefit are the rich, who do wield considerable influence. When is the last time eminent domain was used to take away a $1,000,000 home to make way for affordable housing?
To make the point another way, if the electoral process provided a sufficient check over abuse of eminent domain, there would be no need for a Constitutional guarantee against that abuse. The case in point shows the need for a secured right.
Re:Aarghhh. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the dissent has a simple, winning argument: that "public use" should be read literally. They argue that eminent domain should only be used to seize property that will actually be used by the public -- this certainly means public roads and public buildings (schools, courthouses, military facilities), private equivalents under common-carrier requirements (railroads, for example), and potentially also private places open to the public (private roads, sports arenas).
You may ask "what about using eminent domain to clear urban blight?". This is nicely discussed by Justice Thomas. The power to do this comes from the state police power via so-called "nuisance laws". The logic is that when property is used in ways that harm the public, the public can defent itself by taking the property from its current owner and giving it to someone else. In fact, it is wrong to use the "eminent domain" power as a justification for such laws.
Regarding "absolute right to private property": Just because the government can legally take away your property doesn't mean you don't have a right to it. For example, the government can ban sedition despite the free speech guarantee of the first amendment, and no-one complains. You certainly have some right to your property, and the question is: how strong is this right? The Constitution struck a balance between government power and your property rights -- they were supposed to only take away your property for "public use". Also, they have to compensate you adequately [though if this was the only point, the Due Process clause would have been enough]. Now this balance has shifted radically, and not by amending the constitution.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
All hail the rich (Score:4, Insightful)
The rich have won.
Re:All hail the rich (Score:4, Informative)
Re:All hail the rich (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:All hail the rich (Score:4, Insightful)
The rich have won.
They certainly won the battle. Of course, if the trend continues, just like in societies past, eventually it'll escalate into a shooting war.
Dammit... (Score:5, Insightful)
New way around California's Prop 13: (Score:5, Insightful)
And that creates a new way around California's Proposition 13 (which keeps them from raising property taxes on your house and land until it sells). Watch for this:
1) Emminent domain the tax-capped house.
2) Sell it to another buyer. (Taxes now at new rate.)
3) Previous owner has to buy a different house. (Taxes now at new rate.)
Old owner is now paying the higher tax rate. Old property is now taxed at the higher tax rate.
Public good: Increased tax base.
Supremes say that's OK, it's a state matter.
Oops!
Not as bad as it sounds... (Score:5, Informative)
They stated that this doesn't nothing to prevent states from legislating limits on eminent domain seizures by municipal government
Re:Not as bad as it sounds... (Score:5, Insightful)
Want your state to make laws to prevent this? Show up and vote.
Re:Not as bad as it sounds... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not as bad as it sounds... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not as bad as it sounds... (Score:5, Insightful)
You may be thinking a little too small view here.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not as bad as it sounds... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not one bit. I'm only willing to uphold and protect my own rational self-interest and there's no way you'd get me to swear to do even that. Especially not on that "under god" bit seeing as I'm an atheist. Even better is that the very statement itself is paradoxical as the Constitution would include the freedom from the imposition of a state religion... that will be protected by my religious adherence.
Don't you have the right to protect against home invasion?
Again, no. You have the right to attempt to protect yourself and then be sued by the invader for damages both physical and psychological. By the time you're done you'll have been robbed both by the robber himself as well as the courts and the lawyers.
Re:Not as bad as it sounds... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some rich fucker may take your house, my wife took mine with 1 lie.
Daily I read about courts and how they are unjust. Loosing constitutional rights. I've never had to deal with the courts, so I figured hire a good lawyer and things should be ok. Oh was I wrong.
2 weeks ago, I'm in the middle of a nasty divorce, my wife called me an abuser, no proof. I was kicked out of my house, ordered to pay for counseling for the children, have to go to eval for being an abuser, and she gets to go to battered women's counseling. She gets 1/2 my pay, and I pay for her lawyer.
We had people living with us who testified SHE was the abusive one in the relationship. I couldnt believe the male bias I encountered. Male != abuser. I was the one who filed for divorce!
So, here I am, a working professional, never did anything wrong in my life (well, download an mp3 or 2), and I'm at the mercy of the courts because "For the safety of the children" in the temporary hearings I'm now homeless. Broke from lawyers bills and now have to hire a criminal lawyer on top of it.
Courts are screwing people over left and right, and this is news? Family court doesn't even have normal oversights, its totally unregulated.
What's my recourse? Suffer daily or commit suicide. That's what the courts left me with. Suicide rate for divorced men is over 30%, divorce rate is over 50%, and yet, no regulation for fairness for men in family court, no recourse against false allegations.
I wish I had a constitution blanket, wrap me up and make me feel safe, but thats just lunacy. American men are no longer free, 1 day in court showed me that. Everything I worked for my entire life gone in a day.
God bless America, men need the miracles.
-Brook
http://www.justiceformen.com/ [justiceformen.com]
Re:Not as bad as it sounds... (Score:5, Insightful)
My husband was arrested for abuse. But he had the audacity (and knowledge) to go into court and cry real tears as he claimed I was an alcoholic, neglected the children, and slept around. He said I made false charges of abuse against him when he tried to get me treatment.
All the judge had to do was read the police report to see he was lying. I didn't drink then, and I don't drink now. I was a hard working, devoted wife and mother. I arrived with a stack of documents and several witnesses willing to testify to those facts. But the judge waived me off, and my husband's lie against me resulted in much the same deal you experienced. Over my frantic objections the judge gave him our house, our business, all of our assets, custody of our children, and all of my personal possessions. I was told to "dry out" and she'd take another look at the case.
After 25 years of working 80 hour weeks (through pregnancies and nursing babies) and doing without so many things I wanted, in order to insure financial security for my family - I left that courtroom with $12 in my pocket, no job and nowhere to live. The ONLY thing I got that day was child support imputed based on the TOTAL income of our business - something that took me over a dozen years to build up. I could not make a fraction of that on my own.
The court appointed shrink took a look at my evidence and heard my witnesses. By the third appointment she wrote out a letter saying the court had made a terrible mistake... but by the time I got another hearing TWO YEARS LATER the kids had been seriously abused and everything I owned was gone. He sold it all off and hid the cash. NOTHING was left but a bunch of dysfunctional, angry teenagers.
I know EXACTLY how you feel, but please, don't think its just MEN. I'm very much female. Our courts SUCK. There's no other word for it. Judges are political hacks that make fast, uninformed decisions based more on prejudice than evidence. Go sit outside family court one day and look at all the people crying, their lives devistated by one stroke of the gavel. They aren't all male.
Re:Not as bad as it sounds... (Score:3, Insightful)
The SCOTUS is also supposed to be in the position to identify a nasty slippery slope when they see one. Here, people are left wondering: "if my government comes up with what they think is a better use for my land, can they take it without asking permiss
Re:Not as bad as it sounds... (Score:5, Informative)
From http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050623/D8ATDSD80 .html [myway.com]
O'Connor was joined by
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (conservative)
Antonin Scalia (conservative)
Clarence Thomas (conservative)
O'Connor's dissent was surprisingly terse and (*gasp*) conservative!
From http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23wire- scotus.html?incamp=article_popular_4 [nytimes.com]
In a bitter dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority had created an ominous precedent. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.
"As for the victims," Justice O'Connor went on, "the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."
It pisses me off when people jump to conclusions without hearing all the facts. Next time, please do your homework first. -D
Re:Not as bad as it sounds... (Score:4, Insightful)
Basic property rights shouldn't have to be defined 50 times in 50 different constitutions and fought in the courts of 50 different states.
The whole point of the Constitution is to protect the rights of all US citizens, regardless of which state they live in.
Re:Not as bad as it sounds... (Score:4, Informative)
Oh yes it is (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the court's job, and indeed a grave necessity, for them to rule on matters of constitutionality. Whether or not states set limits on eminent domain, the court must decide if those limits are constitutional.
By taking the position you describe, SCOTUS has nullified the entire concept of "public good." Since anything can now qualify as a public good and pass the constitutional test, it is exactly as if they redacted the words directly from the parchment.
Yes, this means that they effectively repealed a rather important portion of the 5th amendment by fiat.
Private property is now a fiction in the United States. "Property" is now redefined as something that you temporarily occupy under the consent and sufference of your local political majority.
This signals the beginning of a campaign of legal home invasion, as wealthy and politically-connected people will wield the government to transfer the property of others to themselves. Despotism, by any other name.
The end result will be familiar to anyone who'se lived in a radically unjust society: violence.
Re:Not as bad as it sounds... (Score:5, Insightful)
I read most of the opinions of SCOTUS, and the dissent in this case was a great piece of judicial writing, and very, very stinging. The dissent begins:
Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote: Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded - i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public - in the process.
This is some of the strongest language that I have ever seen in a dissent from O'Connor, and I am sure that it represents one of the widest divergences that this particular court has expressed. I think it will be tremendously interesting to see how this plays out.
My particular concern is that this appears to me to be a sweeping decision that that is being sweetened with the idea of pre-existingh checks and balances that will act as a bulwark against abuses. I simply don't believe this. Given the increasingly corporatist leanings of the executive and legislature, I am very, very sad to see the judiciary handing down this opinion, as I believe now that corporations will be able to force the exercise of eminent domain purely by financial muscle, and with an opinion of this sort from SCOTUS, it's going to be very, VERY difficult for people who want to stand against it.
What price now the Fourth Amendment?
No, it's worse. (Score:5, Informative)
In this instance, the judges say that local officials know best. (Never mind what the owners of the land think.)
The part that makes this really bad is that the Court isn't looking at the law and the Constitution, but at the circumstances. They're supposed to be judging the law, not making new laws as they did here.
A similar thing happened in the medical marijuana case. The judges said that they thought the "medical" thing was a sham, that this was all about people wanting a way around Federal drug laws. They had no legal basis for that finding, it was just what they thought about the issue. So they allowed the extension of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to include the doctor-patient relationship.
These decisions are symptomatic of an out of control Court.
Soviet America (Score:5, Funny)
In Soviet America, private property seizes local government.
This is really a sad day.
Free Market, what's that? Never heard of it... (Score:3, Insightful)
In Soviet Amerika, all your house are belong to the rich.
Bogus! (Score:5, Interesting)
The city government claims they seized the property for economic development, as part of a larger plan. Sure, the property is going to be turned over to a commercial developer, but it's "public use" of the land because of the larger economic development plan.
The state courts: Well, the city says their main reason for doing it is public use, not to benefit Pfizer, so it must be public use!
The supreme courts: We'll let the state courts worry about this. They said it's public use, so it probably is. Therefore, it's OK for the city to seize the land.
This is not the building of new roads, this is not the elimination of blight, this is a real estate development deal, and people are losing their houses over it. Does this frighten anybody but me?
Them Pesky Conser-oh, wait... (Score:5, Informative)
For the record, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas were in the dissent. The minority. The losers. The folks saying "no, the government doesn't have the right to take private land from some citizens on behalf of other private citizens as long as there are a few extra tax dollars to be picked up in the process".
If you want to argue party politics ("It's all Bush's fault, favoring Special Interests"), there are plenty of threads where you can do so and still be on-topic.
Unless you're so blinded by partisan politics that you consider O'Connor, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas to be liberals (well, at least for today), this isn't one of those threads.
This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats. It's about libertarians vs. statists.
Re:Them Pesky Conser-oh, wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Labels mean nothing. Most people are blinded by partisan politics that they think George Bush is a conservative. He's certainly not liberal, but he definatly is not conservative.
If anything, he's a liar, power hungry oppurtunist that exploits our laws, and our military for personal wealth.
A typical rich man, not a typical conservative.
One of these days the rich real realize that it's the poor that go to war.... and the poor may just point the guns back at the rich.
Beginning of the end (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I'm disgusted by the ruling. We're going to see *massive*, third-world level corruption appearing in the headlines any time now. It'll be easy for developers to pay off the local gov't to kick people off of their land so that we can have yet another strip mall. This has got to be one of the worst rulings in the recent history of the Supreme Court.
Yeah, first time I find myself agreeing with (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the world coming to???
WTF were the other 5 bozos thinking??
But you have got to build buypasses (Score:3, Interesting)
What does "own" mean now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading the ruling [akamaitech.net], I find the dissents by O'Connor and Thomas much more perusasive. The ruling amounts to saying that, starting today, if others can use your property in a way that will be better for the general public, for example if:
- they will pay more taxes than you do now; or,
- the public will find the house they will build more aesthetically pleasing than yours is; or,
- they bribe the local politicians more than you can afford.
then the government can simply take away your property and give it to them.Of course you have to be "justly compensated". However, all this means is you will get back the "market value" of your property, i.e. what it is worth to a random person on the street. That could be very different from what it is worth to you, or even what it is worth to the developer who will get it and profit from it. Unlike normal economics, where the developers will have to pay based on what they can use the property for, the fair market value will depend on what you are using the property for today. And you personal enjoyment of living in a home you've owned for a long time doesn't factor into that.
Do you think Ms. Dery, who is 87 years old and lives in the house she was born in will be compensated for value of that? She only will be compensated for the value of the house assuming it was sold for profit.
Re:What does "own" mean now? (Score:4, Informative)
In my country (Chile), when the government seizes property, it pays the declared value, the value at which the property is taxed. Since this is normally lower than the real market value, people are even more screwed.
But then, it is not for the sake of private companies...
So now...I'm Amazed! (Score:4, Insightful)
What amazes me here is that the "liberal" wing of the court has ruled against the "little guy" single homeowner, and in favor of the wealthy corporations who can buy political influence easier than I can buy a loaf of bread. And the "conservative" wing is actually standing up for the little guy against the wealthy corporations who make millions in redevelopment. Who would'da thought?
Blighted areas (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, even this argument would not be good enough in some towns, since they have defined "blighted area" so broadly that almost any older home qualifies. For instance, some have legislated that a home without an attached garage is "blighted".
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Disease (Score:5, Insightful)
Have they considered churches? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process."
The sole argument for the misappropriation of these properties seems to be that the overall tax coffers would benefit. That is, there will be higher property, income, and sales taxes due to the economic development.
Now, I'm as pro-business as you'll find on
Churches would be poster-children here: they provide no tax revenue (property, sales, etc), and generally, they exist in spite of popular opinion: a 80% baptist (or catholic/muslim/jewish/etc) community could very easily decide that the property of a minority religion's church is simply expendable.
This opens doors of corruption, discrimination, and hatred on a scale that simply frightens me.
I hope they designate a church on one of those properties quickly (before the bulldozers get there) so that this goes back up on a (slightly) stronger ammendment claim (the First!).
One final thought: I have yet to find ANYONE who thinks this is a good idea! I've heard people blame it on the "corporate elite" (presumably right-wing), and on the "socialists and statists", but nobody's claiming this as their own! How do we get a majory of justices on the SCOTUS that nobody agrees with??
This is really bad for the elderly (Score:5, Insightful)
A person who buys and works 30 years to pay off their house in anticipation of living on their retirement (Fixed income). Typically these neighborhoods will go down in value as the houses age over the years. The property will probably retain or increase in value.
Perhaps it's lakefront property that you bought 30 years ago when the city did not even incorporate in that area and you were rural. But urban sprawl eventually caused to be in the city's influence.
Now the city is looking for more tax revenue due to their overspending and have limited options for development. Rather than raise the taxes on the whole to make up for this, or the citizens deal with the big spenders through the elective process those council members hear from private developers that you have some land they are interested in. So they begin the process of condeming property to allow the developer to take over.
Now the neighborhood is a bit run down but it's a quality place to live and many living there are fixed income retirees. The city is now telling them to move and a house that normally woudl be worth 200,000 dollars is only being offered 60,000 dollars. These people cannot afford to move because nowhere in the immediate area can you buy a brand new house for 60,000 dollars. In fact that barely would make the 20% payment requirements now due to inflation.
So in essence you're kicking these people on the streets, or they get new houses and work till the day they die and instead of their house going to their kids or grandchildren it gets repossessed and your investement for the enjoyment of your family is gone forever.
The only way it can be fair compensation is if these people are relocated into a paid off house with sufficient tax breaks on the house as to facilitate the ability to live as before with possibly some money on the side to help with the loss of a treasured property. To not offer that at the minimum should be illegal. The developer could afford it, and there's no reason they can just come along and uproot your entire life and financial future just to build something so they can make money.
conservative vs. liberal? nope, something else! (Score:4, Informative)
I have no problem saying that, for this case, the dissenting position should have been the majority position, for reasons beyond the fact that I agree with the immediate outcome.
I further have no problem in stating that the 3 of the 4 dissenters are the most consistently conservative members of the SCOTUS, while those in the majority vary from conservative to moderately liberal. (There are no currently no consistently liberal voices on the bench)
However, this does not mean that the majority opinion is "liberal", or even that the dissenting position is necessarily "conservative"; there's somewhat more complex issues at play here.
Let's consider another rubric, in which we consider the "political inclination" of the reasoning behind the differing opinion, ordered by the weight given in their argumentation:
Supporting the Majority:
1. State's Rights / Federal Gov't Defer to State-Level Authority: (the determination of the Conn. Supreme Courts were deferred to); this is "classically conservative" position
2. Strict Consideration of Law and Precedent: this is rather specific to how the SC conducts its business, but I think it's also fair to say that they used "conservative" reasoning in their approach (i.e. they saw no need to disrupt tradition or precedent, and so sought to follow it)
3. Favoring the General Public Good over the Individual Public Good: (the specifics of the case were examined and held that the development planning process was handled above board) - favoring the public good is generally considered to be a liberal position, but in the majority opinion there was little emphasis on the "public good" beyond the state's right to determine what this means.
Supporting the Minority:
1. Gov't may Not Interfere with Private Property - this is a classically conservative position
2. Federal Gov't May Override State-level (local) Issues - during the Civil War this defined the "Republican" position - however, since the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's this has been re-framed as the liberal position
3. Proposed Amendment/Clarification of Existing Legislation - ("Legislating from the bench") - recent propaganda to the contrary, "activist judges" are liberal, conservative, moderate, or whatever. However, this sort of activity may be seen as procedurally Liberal (i.e. it makes waves) just as stricter interpretations make be seen as procedurally Conservative.
My conclusion is that while it is probably fair to label the dissenting opinion as an argument rising from conservative thinking, I could just as easily label the majority opinion as such.
Ultimately, I think we have a conflict between Moderate/Conservative process (i.e. the Court not seeking to make waves) and Conservative values (i.e. the underlying goals and ideals of Conservatism).
Either way this ruling sucks, but it annoys me greatly when
people look at an issue like this and immediately start to draw party line borders. Nuance can be important.
We lost to the government (Score:5, Insightful)
We didn't lose to the commercial developer, we lost to the fucking government! Maybe if we hadn't spent so much time worrying about Evil Business, we might have noticed that our government was reaching critical mass.
Business isn't the problem. Business don't have the power of eminent domain. Business don't have police and armies. And most of all, businesses don't have court systems arbitrarily deciding to take away the unalienable and natural rights you were born with. Only government does that.
Business didn't do this, the fucking government did this. And it wasn't the federal government that started it either, but some pissant little city council with too much time on their hands. For all your bitching about Bush or Kerry you never noticed that all the real tyrants in the US are your neighbors on the city council.
Yes, there are many businesses that lobby and court the government. But don't blame the addict, blame the pusher. Political power wouldn't be for sale if the government didn't put it up for auction to the highest bidder.
We're screwed now. This is a SCOTUS ruling. There's no one we can appeal this do. The only option we have to get our rights and property back is another revolution. The problem is that no one else but me cares. As long as the stop the Home Depot from building on the empty lot down the street, you guys will let the local government do whatever the fuck they want.
Emigrating to Iraq or Afghanistan is starting to look better and better. At least they have a future.
The CT state government took my family's house (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:bush judges (Score:5, Interesting)
And in an ironic twist, David Souter _is_ a Bush-appointed judge - Bush the elder, that is.
Re:bush judges (Score:5, Insightful)
Ford (Score:5, Interesting)
Ford cannot credibly be described as a conservative.
It depends on how you define "conservative" as the meaning is changing, has changed from previous definitions. The same with "liberal". Thomas Jefferson's and Thomas Paine's "Liberal" was someone who believed in a small and limited government, but today it's closer to socialism or big government. Meanwhile conservative back then believed in a big and powerful federal government. Conservatives are still for big government, the only difference between conservatives and liberals today is in what part of government is big. The only political party today with the classical liberal outlook of a small and limited government is the Libertarian Party [lp.org].
FalconRe:bush judges (Score:5, Interesting)
-- Ford
it did happen to me... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:bush judges (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently it proves that not everyone appreciates a good play on a Simpsons quote [quotegeek.com].
Re:bush judges (Score:5, Funny)
Now I need to go take a shower.
Re:bush judges (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't post here often but I heard about this this morning and saw there was a /. article, so I read it. As for replying, I can't resist tearing your argument apart in public.
What exactly is wrong with not "redeveloping" your property? What gives you the right to tell some one to renovate their home if it's up to code? Why should some one be forced to "improve" their home, and who is the judge of what exactly qualifies as an "improvement"?
Now we get to the heart of this: class warfare. "Oh my God those people have way more money than me; they are evil! You should all just give your money away to the poor because they aren't as well off as you! I'm jealous of your money and because I can't have it you shouldn't either! Those are the feelings behind arguments like yours. For your information, this ruling affects everyone, rich and poor alike. And one other thing. Just because some one has more money than you damn sure don't make them less than you, nor does it make them evil. There's a helluvalot of filthy rich people in this world who are good people, who worked hard for their money and worked themselves up from the bottom of the economic food chain.
Whether that's good for everyone is debatable, but it damn sure ain't good for the people whom are being evicted from their homes. Put yourself in their shoes. If some one came to you, wanted to pay you a quarter for your home, and when you didn't pay up the county forced you to sell it for twenty-five cents you'd damn sure be squeeling like a stuck hog! It's high time people like yourself grew up and realized this ain't an us-vs-them problem here. This effects all Americans, rich, poor, or inbetween.
I'm calling bullshit here. If anyone living in the "ghetto" was in this position there are plenty of lawyers who would take this case pro bono to make a name for themselves, twice as many if this was a minority. And here's another thing for you to wrap your pea brain around. How many minorities are specifically affected by this case? I bet you don't even know. You just blindly assume this is only "rich white people".
Honestly, how did some one with so little common sense manage to get online?
P.S. Learn to use capital letters!
Re:bush judges (Score:4, Interesting)
I have one word for you: beachfront. We've had a lot of this happening in Florida. People whom many slashdotters would probably classify as "rich" have had their beachfront property -- extremely expensive pieces of land -- stolen by local governments for private development purposes (typically codos or hotels). In fact, this pseudo-eminent-domain chicanery has been running rampant throughout the past several years, it just doesn't get much coverage in the press.
Re:bush judges (Score:5, Informative)
It just keeps moving up. This is why I'm pissed at government right now, because they keep trying this sort of stuff, and the courts keep ruling for them, sooner or later.
Re:bush judges (Score:3, Informative)
Re:bush judges (Score:4, Insightful)
5-4: One more conservative and it would have gone the other way.
That's why the "filibuster the judicial appointments" battle - a warmup for the next supreme court opening - is so important.
Re:bush judges (Score:5, Insightful)
Or one moderate judge. Or a liberal judge that hasn't lost his mind.
We don't need a "conservative" court. We just need a court with good balance and jurists who think deeply.
Re:bush judges (Score:5, Insightful)
Decisions like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade that make significant changes in how the Constitution is interpreted are fairly rare. Right now, there are two appellate decisions on the Second Amendment that stand in almost direct contradiction to each other, with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the right to bear arms is an individual right, while the Ninth Circuit ruled that there is no individual right. When the opportunity came up to decide the issue, the Supreme Court declined because, I suspect, they were not willing to dive into those admittedly troublesome waters.
They're also very pedantic. Several recent decisions were turned away or dismissed entirely because the person making the challenge did not hold proper standing. They insist that proper procedures and protocol are followed to the letter, and have little patience for those who do otherwise.
Re:bush judges (Score:5, Insightful)
The original comment seemed to imply that it's the republicans who are the evil doers in this case, but it's in fact the democrats who think it's okay to give authority to a municipality to bulldoze a home to build a Walmart.
Re:bush judges (Score:5, Insightful)
And now we have two prominent cases in a row where the "bad guys" are the liberal judges (yes, Scalia voted "against" medical marijuana, but they would have won without his vote, too). Liberal/Conservative is a different thing in the SCOTUS chambers than it is in the halls of Congress.
Re:bush judges (Score:4, Interesting)
- Liberals are for Change
- Conservatives are for Remaining the Same
In Congress, the term "Liberal" has become synonymous with Socialist, mostly because the Liberal Democrats have (over the last 50+ years) promoted legislation with Socialist (providing for the Commons at the expense of the Individual) results. The modern Conservative Republicans exceedingly fall under the term "Neo-Conservative", falling away from the traditional budget hawk positions to a Nationalistic "protect the citizens at all costs".Gone are the Democrats and Republicans of our fathers' era...
Re:bush judges (Score:4, Insightful)
I would say that Neo-Cons are more woried about Empire than protecting it's citizens. It's really a read herring to say that they are strong on Defence. Our military is by far the most powerful in the world even under the post cold war restructuring under Bush Sr. and Clienton. This ruling is actually a victory for the Neo-Cons. The Neo-Con movement seemed to grow out of the Nixonian period. Remember that Bush Sr. and Rummy were close to Nixon. I personally would not be suprised if the Republican party eventually has a schism between the Conservatives and the Neo-cons.
Re:bush judges (Score:5, Insightful)
Just goes to show you that the sides aren't so clearly defined. We need to oppose dangerous ideas, not the liberals or the conservatives.
Pardon, BUT... (Score:5, Insightful)
In that sense, these "liberal" judges were being extremely CONSERVATIVE. The so-called "conservatives" were wanting to run rough-shod over the constitution to leap-frog the federal government straight over the state into an issue appropriately handled by local government. THAT would be a "liberal" action in the usual pejorative sense of the term.
Re:Pardon, BUT... (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument here is whether seizing your private property and giving it to another private entity qualifies as "public use" because that person will pay more taxes than you. I certainly don't think it does; four Supreme Court justices agree. Unfortunately, it should have been at least five.
This is a terrible decision. Alas, there's no higher court; the only hope (short of eventual bloody revolution) is that another similar case comes along and SCOTUS reverses itself. Which is so unlikely as to be laughable. Bloody revolution, here we come!
Re:bush judges (Score:4, Interesting)
-- Parent is Very Wrong -- (Score:5, Informative)
Hardly. The position of the conservatives on the court (who opposed this decision) is that this clearly opens the way for "the rich to own all the businesses and property" precisely because "we're so close to the rich, government, and businesses all being the same."
To quote from the minority opinion of Sandra Day O'Connor, under the majority ruling:
"Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory."
Adding that: "The government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more."
So, in fact, what the conservative judges worry about is exactly the possibility that this will be used to unfairly benefit the rich.
A day that will live in infamy. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the constitution as it was written: Today, five supreme court justices, who are sworn to uphold that constitution, changed it to read: It is very difficult to overemphasize quite how evil this ruling is.
Re:A day that will live in infamy. (Score:5, Funny)
No no. It is easy to overemphasize how evil this is:
This ruling will result in the destruction of the sun and the solar system as we know it.
Thanks. I will be here all week.
Re:A day that will live in infamy. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A day that will live in infamy. (Score:4, Insightful)
It is so evil it extends itself into the Fifth and First Ammendments. Don't like that "hippie" commune next door, the "dirty" bookstore or an independent political opponant?
No need to fight in the "American Way," anymore. Simply seize the property and hand it over to a crony for "development."
Want Randy Weaver off the mountain? Simply sign a paper and make him legally a trespasser in his own home.
This effectively makes the holding of real property a grant by the government, a fuedal/monarchial idea.
The foundation of America is the concept that real property is held by private right, and one can be secure there even against government intrusion.
Nevermind what effect this is going to have on property values by removing the right of the property holder to negotiate price on the open market, not to mention buyer confidence in shelling out any kind of real money for a home.
Not that it matters, as this is the first giant step toward "them" simply telling you where you're going to live and how much you are going to pay for the priviledge.
KFG
Re:A day that will live in infamy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I'm advocating violence. But I do know a few "hicks" who take owning their own home very seriously.
Re:A day that will live in infamy. (Score:4, Informative)
I consider my self a conservative (on economic issues, not so much on social). I live in Northern VA and agree with you on the 2nd part. As do several people I know (who I met in college in CT) who live in New Jersey, New York, Pensylvania (I dare you to call the Jersey guy a hick) and when we read about this over a year ago, yeah, "You can have my property when you pry it from my cold dead hands" was pretty much the summary of our response.
This is one of the cases that make me wonder how long until we have an open revolt in the country. Or something similar.
Re:A day that will live in infamy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A day that will live in infamy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Case in point: the recent marijuana ruling. The Supremes cited the Commerce clause when ruling it illegal for a person to grow marijuana on their own property and use it for personal use under a doctor's perscription.
Oh yes, it takes a special kind of Court to rule that something grown on private property and used on that same private property solely by the owner is governed by the interstate Commerce clause of our Constitution.
It is public use! (Score:5, Insightful)
By bulldozing your house, and putting up a Walmart, it is a public use because they can collect sales tax -- see, public use.
Well, at least we can still speak against the government, or at least for today.
Re:bush judges (Score:5, Informative)
Remember how Bush made his money in baseball: building a larger stadium on land siezed under eminent domain? http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/saturday.html [go.com]
Re:bush judges (Score:5, Informative)
In favor:
John Paul Stevens - Ford/republican
Anthony Kennedy - Reagan/republican
David H. Souter - Bush/republican
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton/democrat
Stephen G. Breyer - Clinton/democrat
Against:
Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan/republican
William H. Rehnquist - Nixon-Reagan/ republican
Antonin Scalia - Reagan/republican
Clarence Thomas - Bush/republican
I'd say toss up on whether more bush/republican judges would help here. Both democrats were in favor, but so were three republicans.
LLLLWWCCC (Score:4, Insightful)
Ginsburg - Liberal
Breyer - Liberal
Souter - Liberal
O'Connor - Waffler
Kennedy - Waffler
Rehnquist - Conservative
Thomas - Conservative
Scalia - Conservative
Generally speaking, of course. YMMV on particular issues.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:bush judges (Score:5, Interesting)
The minority opinion of today's decision is pretty much the group I normally harbor such incredible contempt. And YET, today it is so obvious they were the ones making the correct decision. I am stroking out just trying to grasp this contradiction to my world view.
How do you go to a citizen, a property owner, someone who as poured his sweat and portion of his life into obtaining and maintaining his land, and then tell him he is to be evicted because some rich guy, or some soulless corporation has decided to take his property over???
Re:bush judges (Score:5, Insightful)
The amount they were offered is irrelevant. If they didn't want to sell, the government shouldn't compel it for commercial development. Schools and roads are one thing, strip malls and hotels are another.
In general the government is only supposed to do this stuff . .
When has the government (on any level) stopped at what it's supposed to do? In several of the places I've lived, the local government was effectively an extension of the local real-estate developers. Do you expect them to do the right thing? I sure don't.
. . . ou say the same thing when they had to take a few houses in order to start providing running water for people for the first time?
There's a huge difference between providing public services and building a strip mall.
How utterly absurd (Score:5, Interesting)
You want to build something else? Fine. Go take over the city council's properties. Leave mine alone. This is theft, pure and simple. There;'s precious little difference between this and Cuba's "nationalization" of property after the revolution.
You wait and see. There will now be a LOT of cases where governments decide to "streamline" the process of changing their cities, counties, states, or whatever just to please whoever's in charge, or the local big business they want to buddy up to.
It won't usually involve $17M/acre. It will be backed up with guns if necessary. And it could just as easily be you as anyone else.
Based purely on this one ruling, those judges should be (at a minimum) in public stocks the rest of their lives. Preferably on a flatbed trailer so they can be toted around the country for everyone to laugh at, maybe throw a few tomatoes. I wouldn't have a problem with flogging, either.
But while we're at it, throw in the New London governmental morons who started this.
Re:relevance in slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do a Google search for the case Kelo vs. New London [ij.org]. It has been subject to considerable discussion in many places.
For anyone considering moving states and buying a house, this is going to make them think very carefully about buying a home close to a business park, strip mall or hotel. I wonder if the city councils have considered how this is going to affect their property taxes.
Re:Calm Down everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Note that the framers did not use the ambiguous term "public good" but the term "public use" which is much more well defined. If they take away property, it must be for the use of the public as a whole and not for any small part of it. This ruling basically strikes those three words ("for public use") right off the paper.
Your entire comment is null and void because you didn't read the Fifth Amendment.