MyDD :: Supreme Misunderstanding

Supreme Misunderstanding

by turnerbroadcasting, Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:03:22 PM EST

We seem to have a supreme misunderstanding
in the Democratic party as to how to be the
party of the people. If this ruling,
that allows corporations to steal land
for their own use, stands unopposed -
what sort of rhetoric would save the party itself?

That they are a party of reform/ that they
oppose the unbridled corporatism of the Bush
Administration?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

Or is it because we're turning into China?

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 39 Comments :: Post a Comment

I'll be honest (none / 0)

When I first read this decision, I thought what the hell is going on? However, after viewing the alignments between the majority and minority, I'm going to have to check the bushes closer. Since when have Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia ever given a rat's ass about individual rights when they were pitted against governmental power or coporate interests?

My assumption is that the answer lies in Steven's assertion for the majority that it is perfectly within the power of the states to create more expansive laws that would preclude or diminish the power of local communities to seize property in exercising their powers of eminent domain.

Stevens was a moderate/right swing justice on the Burger court. Some now consider him the most liberal justice on the Court which shows how far in the wrong direction this battle has gone.

by Seldom Seen Smith on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:48:59 PM EST

Re: I'll be honest (3.00 / 2)

Don't base your opinion on the decision based on how the justices voted. Just because the liberals voted for it, does not automatically make it right... It sounds like that was the whole reason for changing your opinion... maybe I am misunderstanding your statement, and if so I apologize.

TO point out, yes the Big 3 do favor corporate over individual... but that is a by product of this case. It is still at its heart the government taking property from private citizens for private use. They could theoretically give it to a non-profit like Habitats for Humanity under this ruling. That won't ever happen, but it could in theory. Except in issues of security, Scalia especially has been in favor of less government. I despise the guy in general but in many cases less government interference would be better.

This whole ruling seems to hark back to the traditional GOP and Democrat stereotypes of 40 years ago... Dems in favor of Big government and the GOP in favor of small government, less rights... Which is exactly the opposite that things are today... Dems as a parties for individual freedoms and less government, except for a few key social programs and the GOP for government influence on social and moral issues, and government intrusion in the name of National security.

Ironically, I agree with the opinion of the Justice I have the least respect for, THomas. His opinion stated that the constitution does not allow imminent domain for private property... and he is right. Although technically it doesn't disallow it either, which gives a legislative loophole to squash cities from doing this.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:16:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll be honest (none / 0)

Good call. For me it was Sandra Day O' Connor,
her opinion really hit a chord. I haven't read
the others. I'll have to get around to doing that.
(lord almighty I'm getting politically sophisticated!)

What do we do to oppose this? I think we can bring
suit. I would like to know what the people
in the case are going to do next. Does anyone know?

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:25:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll be honest (none / 0)

Once the Supreme Court rules, it's settled and done, at least within the judiciary. I don't know when the bulldozers start revving up, but there might be time to approach this through the Connecticut state legislature (much as Stevens alluded to). The way to fight this is to pass laws... not just in Connecticut, but every state... that specifically detail what a "public use" or "public purpose" is, and define them narrowly (i.e. roads, parks, schools, and not shopping malls or anything else with an economic benefit that may trickle down but probably won't).

It sounds like this case really touched a nerve with a lot of people, and I wouldn't be surprised to see initiatives on state ballots in coming years that make that specific point (at least in those states where initiative is an option). Unlike environmental and other strictly regulatory aspects of property law, this seems like an area where the left (the slow-growth, pro-neighborhood people) and the right (the "property rights" zealots and other black helicopter types) have common cause.

by Crazy Vaclav on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:43:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll be honest (none / 0)

If that were the case, the Seperate but equal clause of Plessy v Ferguson would still be in effect.

It just becomes much harder to challenge, but the SCOTUS has definately reversed its precedents throughout history.

Actually there were two ways to fight it, both legislatively. 1) You specify what Just compensation is (2 or 3 times the FMV or Average appraised value is used by private companies) or 2) You pass a law saying Cities cannot sell or give public land siezed in imminent domain to private companies... either AT ALL or for a period of 10 years. It will still happen but you cut down the frequency. I guess you could put an urban blight exemption int here.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 08:56:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll be honest (none / 0)

Well, sure, the Supreme Court can reverse course; it does that all the time. I was referring to this particular case. It's the end of the line for the people in New London. "Res judicata" is the legal doctrine that prevents you from relitigating the same thing over and over just because you don't like the result.

If a different case arose, with a different dubious redevelopment scheme, it's entirely possible that a differently composed Supreme Court might agree to hear it and rule in a different manner.

by Crazy Vaclav on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 01:20:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a property rights case (3.00 / 2)

This has been a conservative bugaboo for years. In many cases they are whack. For example, Thomas would probably agree that environmental laws are an illegal taking.

In California, and probably most states, the legislature writes the law that permits cities to take personal property from one person and give it to a developer. It is just wrong and happens for exactly the reason O'Connor stated in her dissent. Campaign contributions buy access and legislation. The laws are wrong and this decision is wrong.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:17:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But Stevens hinted at that too... (3.00 / 1)

I get the impression from the last paragraph of the opinion that Stevens may not be happy with the outcome (he sounds really apologetic) but that he's narrowly tailoring the opinion so that it's about defending the government's broad right to engage in eminent domain. Basically, he says that the real source for redress should be changing the state laws so that the "public use" standard is higher, thus preventing handouts to developers who pony up big political contributions like with the New London project.

Many of you may feel that's a cop-out [see Gary's comment about bright line law somewhere downthread], and I suppose that's true, but that's basically the way the Supreme Court has always functioned. If they can punt anything back to the states, or to Congress (like Stevens did in the majority opinion of the medical marijuana case), they will.

Here's that last paragraph:

In affirming the City's authority to take petitioners' properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation.21 We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law,22 while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised.23 As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate.24 This Court's authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek.

by Crazy Vaclav on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:54:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Stevens hinted at that too... (3.00 / 2)

It's the "public use" part of that sentence that I have profound disagreement with. Private development is not "public use."

Public use is a beach or a park. Public use could be a lake or a reservoir for a public water system. There are all kinds of legitimate publics uses that are more appropriate for this kind of law than a shopping mall or a ball park that someone else is making tons of money from.

The decision should also mention the "blighted" part of most public redevelopment laws. The "blighted" property zone is another area of the law the Supremes should have taken a closer look at. City Councils routinely declare perfectly good middle class neighborhoods as "blighted" so they can steal the property for their buddies.

The Supremes really missed the boat on this one. There is a "remedy" at state legislatures if private citizens can acquire as much political power as corporate scumbags. That is where O'Connor hit the nail on the head. In cases like this the legislature is not responsive to the needs of the citizens, because only a few citizens are directly impacted and the threat is so remote for most people.

Even without reading the dissenting opinions, I know I would find discussion of these and probably other issues that make this decision an abomination.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:27:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Stevens hinted at that too... (none / 0)

Yeah, your fourth paragraph is key. The Connecticut legislature could easily enough pass laws saying "Public use means parks and roads, not shopping malls, dumbass," and "Blight means total wasteland, not just a junkyard down the street," and that's where Stevens stops. Of course, they won't; the legislature responds to moneyed interests. (I assume that Connecticut, as one of those weird east coast states, doesn't have initiative and referendum.) (Or maybe that's wise, based on how things have been going in California, Washington, and Oregon lately.)

The Supreme Court, of course, could go further than that; in Brown v. Board or Roe v. Wade or the Texas sodomy case, they didn't say "Um, take it up with your state legislators," they said "OK, this is how it's going to be, because we said so." Those sort of moments of clarity are rare, and that's why those cases are landmarks. I usually like Stevens, but he's never been bold (or "activist," if you will) in the way of Douglas or Brennan.

by Crazy Vaclav on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 03:44:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Appalling decision (none / 0)

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

This was a naive and fascist decision. The City Council carefully formulated how to steal the land of honest, hard working Americans and hand it over to their corporate scumbag buddies.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"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.

The San Diego City Council did the same thing to hand over land to the Padres for their new ball park. There is no justice in stealing a working man's land so developers with connections on the City Council can make more money. If the goal of the development is that financially beneficial, the developer can pay a fair market value for the land.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:15:04 PM EST

Re: Appalling decision (none / 0)

I agree, although in this case the owners would not see even for above FMV. Just a point of clarification. Bad decision. never thought I would side with Scalia.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:18:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Appalling decision (none / 0)

There is no requirement for a property owner to sell for fair market value. There are millions of homes that cannot be bought at "fair market value" because they are not for sale. If you offer someone a hundred thousand over FMV, many would sell and many would not.

There are all kinds of women who have an irrational emotional attachment to their home, their children and sometimes even their husband. Nobody should be forced to sell or move because a developer wants their land. At a minimum, this type of redevelopment project should guarantee twice the fair market value. If the development is important enough to the city, the city and the developer can share the additional cost of purchasing the property at above FMV.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:24:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Appalling decision (none / 0)

Again, I dislike the decision... I was just pointing out that the city stepped in when the owners wouldn't sell, from my understanding of the case. ANd your right, it just says Just compensation. MAYBE, a law needs to be passed setting just compensation levels. That may make some of these cities think twice... If the feds or states care.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:15:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Appalling decision (none / 0)

Hey Gary wasn't this also on Bill Moyers "NOW",
once a while back? I seem to recall a similiar
case... I don't think it was in New England..
Does anyone remember?

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:26:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Appalling decision (none / 0)

Do a google search for "redevelopment & blight". This is going on all over the country. Developers have caught on to a way to make bundles of cash and are buying off state legislatures and City Councils in every state and city.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:51:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Appalling decision (none / 0)

In California there are already several citizen groups that I suspect will be picking up support. Check out this redevelopment site that talks about blight in San Jose. Cripes. The Beverly Hills City Council could condemn part of Beverly Hills as blighted. I'm sure the Pacific Palisades City Council could find blighted areas where the homes are only worth $700,000 dollars and condmen them. There are practically no restrictions whatsoever on what type of property City Councils can condemn for a shopping mall.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:56:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Appalling decision (none / 0)

Gary, the scary thing is - they don't even
have to condemn the property as blighted. In the
facts of the case, only the first round of the
battle had the city trying to condemn the properties - despite the fact that they were well maintained, freshly painted, clean and nice homes -

So they just went straight in for the kill. The
basis of the ruling is that the city can decide
whether or not to take your home from you,
and they only need a local board ruling - which
is normally made up of people who are just write-ons
that get 100 folks together to get them elected.

Ask anyone. Half of those folks are already on
the take.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fortune500/retail_eminentdomain/index.htm

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 08:16:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Losing the battle to win the war (3.00 / 1)

This case is a bad outcome, I'll agree, but the net result is good for a pro-governmental powers interpretation of the Fifth Amendment and the Constitution in general. Had this case gone the other way, it would have been a victory for the far-right property rights loonies (who would use it as a beachhead to attack environmental laws, historical preservations laws, etc.) and for the Constitution-in-exile movement in general, which is all about saying the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate much of anything, thus returning us to a pre-New Deal free-for-all.

Like I said, I feel bad for the people in New London facing down bulldozers. But this is one where we need to see the forest for the trees.

by Crazy Vaclav on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:26:59 PM EST

I don't think so (3.00 / 1)

The slippery slope argument is considered a logical fallacy for the simple reason that it is a logical fallacy.

Legislatures and courts draw lines all the time. In fact, some cases refer to "bright line" decisions because the line is drawn so clearly that there can be no mistake. That is what is needed here.

Taking a poor man's property so a rich man can make more money is wrong.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:44:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing the battle to win the war (3.00 / 1)

Pre-New deal we were too much to one extreme... In 2005,we are pretty far to the other extreme. Problem is where is the middle on this..

Clowns to left of me, Jokers to the right...

by yitbos96bb on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:17:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing the battle to win the war (none / 0)

stuck in the middle again. yeah. Actually I would
like to belong to a party, to tell the truth. being
a lone wolf has its downside. but if the dems dont
do anything here.. what happens next? I know this,
if there's no response - they can kiss my money
goodbye. We have quite a few crooks here in certain areas of our country who are going to have a field
day with this; we JUST got done winning a case
in our own neighborhood. I can conceive of something
like this really. REALLY messing up my land values -
in our case the city thought it would be good
to cluster up, but it would drop our land values.
This ruling says, basically, they would have been
right. Thats like saying the government knows
how to pick a better real estate investment than
the public. Not so, in my case. My property
has appreciated nearly 80% in just 7 years.

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:30:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks Crazy (none / 0)

Had this case gone the other way, it would have been a victory for the far-right property rights loonies (who would use it as a beachhead to attack environmental laws, historical preservations laws, etc.) and for the Constitution-in-exile movement in general, which is all about saying the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate much of anything, thus returning us to a pre-New Deal free-for-all.

I suspected there was a reverse logic to be found in this cloud. I'm simply not skilled enough at moving the pieces when it comes to constitutional law to win too many on that board: Greatly appreciate the clarification. Others' comments were highly educational as well. Good show y'all.

by Seldom Seen Smith on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 07:36:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

wait a minute (3.00 / 0)

i must take issue with a phrase you used in describing people who disagree with this decision. you said "far-right property rights loonies". to be honest, i am extremely far left, but i do not favor this decision. perhaps this resonates with me because this battle is being waged right in my backyard, and because i recently became a property owner.

i would hate to think that my lovely home, which i worked hard for, could be taken from me by the government and turned over to a private corporation. it's my property that i earned. i didn't buy it so some government thug could come in and take it and give it to jerry jones (to cite my local example).

i understand the other side of the argument, which is that public works projects and conservation efforts could benefit greatly from this ruling. but there are other ways to preserve land without resorting to big-brother type intrusion onto my person or property.

it does say life, liberty, and property in the bill of rights, after all.

and think about it. what would you do if your city government knocked on your door tomorrow and said, "hey crazy vaclav, we want to build a baseball stadium on your property. i know it's worth $250,000, but we've only got room in the budget for $75,000. and if you don't take the deal, we'll keep the money and take your land anyway." that is exactly what happened when bush got his stadium in arlington. that is the real-world application of laws such as that which the SCOTUS ruled on today. and i'm sorry, for all the potential good it could do, i can't support it because there are other ways to procure land for preservation besides just taking it.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 08:30:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: wait a minute (none / 0)

I didn't mean to imply that you or anyone else here who owns property and is attached to it (me included) is a far-right property rights loony. I would be just as pissed as you if Paul Allen came after me because he needed to build another stadium. I was thinking more about the people... usually rural landowners... who are resistant to any sort of police power regulatory scheme that might affect how they want to use their land, like zoning restrictions or environmental laws.

It might not be a subspecies you're quite as familiar with in Texas, since it's my impression that zoning laws are almost non-existent there, so everyone kind of expects they can do what they want with their land there. Here in Washington, and especially here in King County, we have very aggressive growth management laws, stringent environmental laws, and the right-wing rural guys are very angry about that. Those are the people I was talking about.

There are several different elements to Fifth Amendment takings clause law. Most cases aren't about what a "public use" is, like this case today, but they're about "regulatory takings." In other words, a landowner would take issue with environmental laws preventing him from building on a seashore lot, or for clearing too much of the natural vegetation from his lot, and say to the government "that reduces the value of my property, boo hoo, that's a taking, so pay me money."

So if the Supreme Court had ruled the other way today, the unfortunate downside would have been at a more big-picture level; a more conservative opinion would essentially state that the government has limited power to regulate private property, either through eminent domain or police power, and would be one more precedential building block in the right's assault on the government's very ability to enact things like environmental laws, growth management plans, and the like... the exact kind of thing that wackos like Janice Rogers Brown hope to accomlish. So by siding with developers in this case and throwing the people of New London overboard, Stevens had a bigger goal in mind, of preserving the federal government's broad powers to regulate private property under the Fifth Amendment.

I hope that clears things up a bit. Con Law is one of the trickiest things in the world to explain clearly.

by Crazy Vaclav on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 01:13:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

gotcha (none / 0)

your assessment about our zoning laws is pretty correct for rural areas. in the city, it's much more strict.

i understand where you're coming from. i was just hoping to point out that it's not just right wingers who are upset about this decision. it directly relates to some issues we're fighting over here in my hometown, so naturally it's pretty personal to me.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 09:44:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: gotcha (none / 0)

Sure, most people on the left seem pissed off too. I waded through the main thread on this over at Daily Kos last evening... there were something like 550 posts, and probably 90% were anti- the ruling. Oddly enough, about the only people there in favor of the ruling were the people there who appear to be lawyers (hopefully not because this decision means more work for them... probably because they understand the importance of not creating bad precedent that'll bite you harder in the butt later.)

(As for Texas-style zoning, that's based on my limited experience with Houston, which is pretty much a development free-for-all. It sounds like you're in Dallas, which is considered a little more civilized than Houston, right?)

by Crazy Vaclav on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 10:32:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yea (none / 0)

i'm in a burb between dallas and fort worth. and yea, we like to pretend we're more civilised, but, well, heh, not all the time.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 03:51:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Constitutional law (3.00 / 1)

This case is fundamentally flawed. Economic development is not a Constitutionally protected right. Property rights are Constitutionally protected.

This decision is just wrong.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:45:23 PM EST

Re: Constitutional law (none / 0)

I am struggling with this right now -
is it the 5th amendment that guarantees this?
Where is the wording that says it. I believe
you have a strong hypothesis but what is
your basis?

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:22:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Constitutional law (none / 0)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The preamble mentions life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It also mentions establishing Justice and the "Blessings of Liberty". Secure property rights are necessary for all of these.

The Fifth Amendment: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law

This decision fails on the due process of law standard. People whose homes are stolen have been denied access to the courts to seek a redress of their grievance.

The Fifth Amendment: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The decision also fails the just compensation clause. I don't know about the specific facts of this case, but the Supreme Court is supposed to make decisions that apply to all general cases. In many cases people have their homes stolen for practically nothing.

The Fourteenth Amendment: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Same argument.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:47:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i am... (none / 0)

10000% with you on this one, gary.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 08:31:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Constitutional law (none / 0)

I don't see how you are arguing that they were denied access to the courts. The case went to SCOTUS. Likewise, I don't understand the fundamentals of the case to be about the level of compensation.

Am I a fan of this particular situation? Frankly, I don't know enough about it to tell. But I do believe the underlying principle is one that needed to be maintained in order to limit even greater environmental and social catastrophe.

If the argument is that the "just" compensation isn't always just, I'd be hard pressed to disagree. On the other hand, there are tons of grey situations even if you are against this particular case.

by PghArch on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 08:27:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Constitutional law (none / 0)

I am not saying they were denied access to the courts. They were denied due process. Not the same thing. There are all kinds of ways that courts can deny due process rights.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 10:10:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Constitutional law (none / 0)

Here's a searchable Constitution page that comes in very handy.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:04:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We've lost our CLASSICAL liberalism (3.00 / 2)

I've read most of this ruling.

The alignment is interesting, and reflects the selective way the court defends individual rights...On a matter like sexual privacy, the more liberal wing consistently invokes substantive protections; Thomas, Rehnquist and Scalia often see matters of personal morality as the province of legislatures...

In THIS case, the liberals -- Stevens, Ginsburg -- specifically ruled that it's not the role of the courts to second-guess legislatures; however, the conservative wing, while not specifically dissenting on substantive due process grounds, firmly stood with the individual property owners...loudly claiming that the Supreme Court should have nullified the "will of the people" in Connecticut...the beauty of "judicial restraint" is in the eye of the beholder, I guess :)

...In this case, the majority's very loose "public purpose" standard effectively renders the "public use" portion of the Fifth Amendment meaningless... In legitimate cases where land is taken from one private individual and given to another, there is clear public access to that property -- e.g., when land is taken to build a railroad (or common carrier) for instance... But here, it's simply a transfer between two "ordinary private uses"...

As a classical liberal, I think the constitution protects BOTH property rights AND sexual privacy...It also protects gun rights, for instance... The courts should err on the side of liberty...and defend the individual against "activist" legislatures..

by HKingsley on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:16:06 PM EST

Re: We've lost our CLASSICAL liberalism (3.00 / 1)

The Scalia, Thomas, Rhenquist position that property rights and corporate interests are entitled to more Contitutional protection than individual rights is pretty strange.

I'm beginning to wonder if the Democratic party isn't returning to the classical liberalism principles of limiting political power and protecting individual rights. I think a pragmatic liberalism or progressive impulse that recognizes the limits of government action has replaced the idea that the federal government can solve all problems.

The only libertarian impulses in either political party are on the Democratic side of the aisle. You might be able to make the argument that Specter, Chaffe and Snowe respect individual rights, but that's it on the Republican side.

I am cautiously optimistic about the prospects for the next Democratic administration with any Congressional support whatsover.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 07:35:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hell freezes over. (3.00 / 1)

I agree with Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and O'Connor over Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens.

First the medical marijuana case and now this. It must be getting pretty cold in hell right about now.

by wayward on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:54:28 PM EST

The heat is on the way (none / 0)

This article gives but a taste of the heat
that is on the way..

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fortune500/retail_eminentdomain/index.htm

This issue needs to go front and center,
it shows exactly how much corporations are
in control. Today it became legal for them
to seize your home without any good reason
whatsoever . If you don't believe it,
ask the people of that supreme court case - a
pretty little block in downtown that is
being bulldozed because the city wants
to put in strip malls.

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 08:13:51 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.