And just so this isn't the "All Guantanamo Bay, All The Time" blog...
I'm a bit upset with this ruling by the Supreme Court.
Traditionally, eminent domain has been legal in cases where a city government needs to build infrastructure (highways, reservoirs, bridges, etc), but this is the first case I'm aware of where the land being seized (purchased, but against the owners' will) will be turned over to businesses for development, and I think that sets a really bad precedent.
Plus, eminent domain requires a "fair" price be paid for the property seized, but who defines fair? And how can you put a price on certain types of property? One of the people set to lose his house in New London, CT with this ruling is living in the same house his great grandparents built. It's not just a house to him, it's a part of his family history. To have it taken away because a new highway had to go through there, that'd be painful but understandable. But to have it taken away so that Wal*Mart can build a store, or Home Depot or Best Buy? That's insane.
(And yes, Ralph, I already know that once again I'm agreeing with most of the conservative members of the court. Once again let me point out, my problem isn't with conservative judges, it's with extremist judges in either direction.)
Copyright (c) June 24, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net
posted by Liam at 6/24/2005 02:33:00 AM
8 Comments:
I have been a little taken aback by the ruling by the Supremes. But it is not the first time. This is actually judicial activisim as it has NEVER been done by ANY of our elected officials; just the Supremes. There is a place for Political Subdivisions to take "eminant domain" for the good use and expansion of the city, but to award the financial rewards of this act to other private entities is wholely uncalled for. If the taking of the property is to be justified then the entire amount of the profit to be made by the private party to whom the property is to be given MUST be given to the individual from whom the property is taken in the first place, which would then discourage the act itself!!!
Friday, June 24, 2005 10:00:00 PM
Liam,
Are the ones you agree with extremists?
Monday, June 27, 2005 10:16:00 AM
Well, first off, one rarely believes those one agrees with are extremists.
However, my final line wasn't to say that I felt I agreed with extremists. I don't think we really have any extremists on the current Supreme Court. Possibly Clarence Thomas, but in general I think the court is within one standard deviation away from centrist in either direction.
What I was trying to get at with my final line was that I DON'T believe the three judges (whose names won't come to mind just now) that first benefited from the bargain that saved the filibuster rule are within that "one standard deviation".
I think my preference for judges is for MODERATE conservatives, followed by MODERATE liberals. I want extremists and activists kept away from the level of power the supremes have.
Look, the point is that the Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life. They are as free from political influence as we can make them, not being subject to reelection. This is not, as some people would have us believe, a bad thing. This is actually a GOOD thing, it gives them the power to issue findings that they believe are CORRECT, even when they are not politically POPULAR.
In this specific example, I don't believe the "Public Use" clause in the Constitution is met by arguing that it's in the public interest to let private developer X build his luxury condos or his trendy mall. But I can certainly understand where they differed from my interpretation, and came up with a valid alternate one.
I would be far more offended if the majority opinion on the court had been that Eminent Domain was justified in this case because the developer was gay or Christian (just to pick a favorite group of each extreme end of the political spectrum).
That's why I prefer a moderate in either direction over an extremist in either direction.
(And by the way, there are rumors floating around that if Rehnquist retires today, Bush might nominate Karl Rove. I expect these are just liberal rabble rousing, but just to be clear, Karl Rove is in no way a fair or unbiased choice, and in my view is extremist in the, well, extreme.)
Liam.
Monday, June 27, 2005 10:40:00 AM
I get you. You like moderates. The current Supremes are all moderates. But you don't like the New London takings decision from center-left moderates. Possibly your moderate tent is too big.
Monday, June 27, 2005 2:35:00 PM
Ralph,
How can you say that? Are you aware that 7 of the 9 current Justices were nominated by Republican Presidents?
Ford nominated:
Stevens
Reagan nominated:
Rehnquist
O'Connor
Scalia
Kennedy
Bush I nominated:
Souter
Thomas
Clinton nominated:
Ginsburg
Breyer
So while it is possible to talk about those cases (like this one) on which both Liberal appointed Justices voted in the same direction, it requires at least three Conservative appointed Justices to form a majority opinion on anything.
By the way, the source of the article calls Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer is the "liberal bloc", which I find interesting. So Ford and Bush I both nominated liberals?
And my moderate tent is not too big. Kennedy is not considered a liberal by any stretch of the imagination, but he felt that the majority opinion was compelling. I disagree with the ruling, but that doesn't make it legally indefensible. That, to me, is the definition of extremist.
If you rule based on your opinions and your political leanings rather than the rule of law in the United States, you're an extremist.
Again, I think extremist conservatives are the most frightening to have.
So, in order, I'd prefer:
1) Moderate Conservative
2) Moderate Liberal
3) Extreme Liberal
4) Extreme Conservative
Got it now?
Liam.
Monday, June 27, 2005 7:39:00 PM
Oh, and I love how property rights are so UNIMPORTANT that the government can seize your property pretty much at will (with "fair compensation", but I've yet to hear who decides what constitutes fair), but on the other hand are so vitally important that someone who writes a piece of software that ends up being used for illegal purposes (entertainment file swapping) is liable for the theft, even if they didn't support it.
In other words, the rights of the corporations (big developers who want to build a mall or luxury condos) are more important than the rights of property owners (people who just want to live their lives, in their own houses, in peace), and are also more important than the rights of people to develop new software, if there's any way that that software might be illicitly used to infringe on those corporate rights.
Tell me again how this is a liberal issue? Sure sounds like more conservative "Corporations are more important than actual citizens" garbage to me.
Liam.
Monday, June 27, 2005 8:04:00 PM
How can I say what? I am not fixated about who appointed who. Just asking you about whether you like the leftish center justices better than the rightist center justices. I also did not categorize this decision one way or the other. You seemed to in above comments and I was just attempting to get you to reason your way through this case (and your opinions of justices) before your emotions captured your reason. I failed.
Monday, June 27, 2005 11:54:00 PM
BTW the political leanings of the Supremes is not automatically a function of the President appointing them.
Monday, June 27, 2005 11:56:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home