The Freepers are right about Eminent Domain: It's a DEM SC decision

[Modem Butterfly]

We need to grow up and admit it: the concept that a government can seize private property and give it to private businesses against our will is a Democrat concept. The idea that everything in society should cater to business interests and that the bottom line of the economy should be the bottom line on society are dearly-loved Democrat values. The concept that a government should act counter to its citizens interests in order to enable companies to make more money goes all the way back to Roosevelt. We need to grow up and admit that we're ALL about corporate interests surpassing individual interests.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. The idea that hundreds if not thousands of jobs

will revitalize a community more than the comfort of 54 people (assuming it was 9 families of five)who will be compensated for their loss and still have a remedy in the courts if they are not IS a DEM idea. I never heard freepers screaming about property rights when ghettos were replaced by freeway ramps

[Goldmund]

2. 'twas a boring morning

:popcorn:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. and Bush should thank them for it

Bush should say: "Thank You!"

[whistle]

4. That's horseshit...republicans love this kind of power, the case

...was about Wal-Mart seizing property in South Carolina. Wal-Mart! The biggest contributors to republican campaign war chests.

[vi5]

5. Look, I loathe this decision as much as anyone....

But the basis of this decision was not corporate interests (although it ends up at that point), it was "community" interests. Does everyone think that suddenly Scalia and Thomas and Rheinquist suddenly started caring about the little guy and started hating big corporations and greed? The crux of this case and decision was the greater good of the community as a whole over the individuals wants and needs. It's really not absurd to make a case that on those merits this was a liberal interpretation of the law.

[Modem Butterfly]

6. Hey, and if it happens to fatten some developer's wallets..

...so much the better, right?

[vi5]

10. Again, I don't agree with the ruling....

...or the results it will have. But for any of us on here to act like it wasn't ruling in a left leaning, liberal interpretation of the law is not being intellectually honest. If you don't like the ruling either that's fine. I agree with you. But the end results of something don't neuter the basic points of it. Honestly, do you really think that Scalia, Thomas, and Rheinquist just suddenly found their social consciousness on this?

[Toots]

14. It has always been so

When they take away a home for say putting a new road in who builds the road? Corporations have always made out like bandits when eminent domain is used. this is no different in that regard. Believe it or not Corporations are not the bad guy in America. Some CEOs are criminal but that does not mean that corporations are evil. Society would suffer immensely without them. It has always been a Liberal idea that society as a whole is more valuable than the individual. In fact that is the big difference between the two parties. Republicans believe if individuals are doing good then society is doing good. Democrats believe society is benefited more when all prosper not just individuals.

[K-W]

22. BS corporations are horrible organizations.

The fact that some kind of organization is better than no organization is hardly an excuse to praise corporations.

Yes, we do need some form of organization to organize the economy, that organization should not be privately owned tyranical cartels that have the same legal status as people and control the neccessities of life while corrupting or destroying forms of democratic organization.

[Toots]

30. A majority of all corporations in America have less than twenty employees

Most are mom and pop operations that incorporated for liability purposes. They are not horrible or evil.

[K-W]

43. We need not allow giant corporations to destroy our society

to help small businesses. There is a seemingly infinate number of possible systems that we could setup to preserve small businesses that wouldnt at the same time give the wealthy in this country legal cover to grab undemocratic power.

How about we return to the original idea of incorporation, where corporations exist only with the approval of a democratic government to serve a public interest?

Perhaps you misunderstand me, I am not arguing that one cannot invision or that indeed examples do not exist of an incorporated business that serves the public good. I am arguing that our law should require that of all corporations.

Simply the idea of creating a legal framework for business is, as you state, a good one. The idea of that framework granting privately owned(and thus undemocratic) organizations the rights of people is indefensible.

[K-W]

21. That is the wrong here, not eminent domain.

The wrong is that the electoral system is so corrupted that businesses are weilding state power a tool for profit, not that the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of eminent domain.

If this were a desperately needed public hospital would you still be complaining?

The supreme court cant just govern randomly, it can only decide issues of law. Eminent domain is legal and it is the conservatives who wish that werent the case.

The solution to this problem is electoral reform so corporations dont control government, not crippling emminent domain.

[Lexingtonian]

7. not only that

The larger message was Tony Kennedy's: he told the Rehnquist foursome that he wasn't just leaving them on social issues (gay rights, death penalty), he was also calling bullshit on their Property Uber Alles economic rights doctrine.

[Jon8503]

8. What bothers me about this decision as well is that there are

going to be at least one Supreme Court appointment if not two coming up. This sure as hell does not make the case for more liberal appointments when the libs are going against the homeowner and citizens of this country.

The republicans have already started their Supreme Court appointment ads on TV.

I was really disappointed in how this decision came down. There is definitely a reason for the way the votes went but to the public it is simply the liberals took away my right to keep my home.

[GiovanniC]

16. In Fairness

We aren't getting a "liberal" judge on the Supreme Court in the next four years anyhow. It's all just a matter, at this point, of HOW FUCKING EVIL will they be? We're gonna get stuck with an uber-conservative judge. Just HOW uber-conservative? That's the question. To believe for a second that Bush will nominate a liberal or even a moderate judge is delusional, with or without this ruling. We'll be lucky just to avoid a Justice Kenneth Starr or Justice John Ashcroft.

[Walt Starr]

19. All that matters to me is how they come down on this ruling

If they vehemently oppose this ruling, I'll be contacting my Senators to voice my support for the nominee.

One of my two Senators is the Minority Whip and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

[GiovanniC]

25. I Share Your Outrage At This Ruling, Walt

Although I don't consider it my ONLY litmus test regarding a SC nominee, I would definitely rank it in the top five issues for me.

Eminent Domain, the way it is used today, is in total and blatant opposition to the Constitution of this nation. I also want to see how a Justice would come down on other issues, but I don't hold out much hope that they'll agree with my views.

[Jon8503]

42. No, you are right about Bush not putting a liberal judge on the bench, I

was never saying that and I am not delusional as you say. What I am talking about is that public opinion will help with the senate when the battle begins as it now has. The republicans have already started putting their supreme court ads on tv.

With this ruling the public is seeing that a liberal point of view is to take away his property. There is more to their ruling than this but the public only cares about their home and their land. When you pick up the paper this morning what you see is that the liberal side of the court sided against the little guy.

This did not help the cause at all.

[GiovanniC]

44. Well, In This Ruling, The Liberals DID Side Against the Little Guy

But frankly, I don't see it making much of a difference one way or another because when the smoke clears, I think the new Justice will be an uber-reich-winger anyway.

[Jon8503]

45. I agree, the final outcome will not probably be in our favor.

However, I intend to keep a glimmer of hope that their choice may be one that does not vote in their favor as has happened in the past. Can only hope.

Actually, back on this vote. It is the perception that looks bad. I do not think voting against the little guy was their intent. I just wish the vote had not come up at this particular time.

[GiovanniC]

46. Intent or Not, That's Precisely What Happened

The little guy and the Constitution got screwed without lube.

[Jon8503]

48. Yeah, I think you & I are pretty much on the same page.

See U around here & take care.

[Walt Starr]

9. And it makes me rethink my affiliation with the Democratic Party

Seriously.

[JDPriestly]

11. The Supreme Court simply tossed this back to local voters

This is not a problem. If a local government abuses the right of eminent domain, you can throw them out -- just go to the polls and vote them out -- in most places, although I know one exception to that, and there may be others. The exceptions are towns in which one wealthy individual has a disproportionate voice in what goes on and uses the eminent domain right for his or her own purposes.

This use of eminent domain to encourage private development is called community redevelopment. It has brought a number of inner cities back to life after they had fallen into ugly slums. It has its drawbacks, including the homelessness that results when the "blighted" areas, which after this decision can include areas that are not "blighted," and the low or now middle-income housing in them is destroyed and not replaced.

Of course, this decision may be a ray of hope. Maybe now the majority of us who are not rich can get together and vote in candidates for local government who will take the properties of the very rich -- especially those the rich are not using -- and turn them into wonderful housing for the homeless. It's just a matter of getting the right people elected to your local city council. Wasn't it Pfizer that wanted to take people's homes and properties to build its plant? Now where did you say the Pfizer CEO lives? (Just joking of course -- but, on second thought????)

[Bonhomme Richard]

12. Eminent Domain is a red herring.

This was about states rights pure and simple, not to mention that 3 of the 5 judges were appointed by republican presidents.
Notice that the dissenters (Scalia, Thomas etc.) have been typically voting against states rights even though they claim it as a mantra.

I was crazy mad about this yesterday but after thinking about it for a while I've come to the conclusion that the judges that voted for it knew what the reaction was going to be and actually showed courage voting the way they did.

[Finder]

27. Same here...

I couldn't understand why they would rule this way. The ruling was constitutional. As you said--it will now be up to the states.

I wonder how much tax revenue can be made from razing a few churches?

[dean_dem]

38. I see your point...

but ultimately its up to the Supreme Court if the case is carried that far to ensure the States don't overstep their bounds on personal liberties. The Constitution calls for the rights of individuals to come before the rights of States, and the rights of individuals were clearly infringed upon by the State in this case.

I'm just disturbed by the fact that it seems now the amount of tax revenue you pay to the Government seems to determine how much protection you get from said Government. That's not the way its supposed to work.

And I also should add that I could give a rat's ass about the semantics of whether emminent domain is a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' concept. It was clearly being abused in this case, regardless of the political backgrounds of the judges who upheld it.

[dcfirefighter]

13. It's an authoritarian decision

Dems have a long history of telling people how to live their lives and run their businesses, the republicans ony have a short history of same.

I don't like either, but see the need for eminent domain. I think there would be less use & abuse of ED if folks had to pay more in taxes against land value - a central concept in green economics.

The concept of 'land' as property is not a natural one - most first nations peoples recognized property in tools, animals, shelter, and crops, but not in land.

[K-W]

18. No it isnt, not in the slightest.

It is as authoritarian as our government or as democratic as our government.

The concept of eminent domain is not authoritarian. Your complaint is with our lack of democracy that allows private tyranical organizations to get away with pretending that what is in thier interests is in the public interest.

The problem with siezing land for private development isnt the siezing of the land, it is the lie that private development is a public good. But that isnt something the supreme court can rule on. As long as the elected officials think this is for the public good, they have the right to sieze land.

Eminent domain is a horrifically liberal idea, the libs on the supreme court dont get to pick what state and local governments think is in the best interests of thier regions.

Because if the state cant sieze land for development if thats what it thinks is best, it cant sieze land for a school or highway. You cant pick and choose when the constitution should be applied.

Fight the real battle against corporate rights and for real democracy, not a misguided battle against the supreme court for doing its job.

[Rainbowreflect]

15. You are so right. The repubs are all about the little guy and

very anti corporate business. I mean bush would never try and take privately owned property for, say a, baseball stadium.
:sarcasm:

[ComerPerro]

17. Not the aspect of catering to Businesses

They are the ones who want Corporations to have free reign.

But, yes, this was decided by the more liberal justices.

It doesn't change anything though. This was already in place.

[MadHound]

20. And there's only one way for us liberals to look better after this mess

And that is for the Dems in Congress to push through a Constitutional Amendment specifically spelling out what "public use" and "public good" is, and have it specifically ruling out such public/private interests as the travesty of justice we saw yesterday.

It is the only way liberals of all stripes, including Dems, can redeem themselves after this BS.

It would be something that is do-able, for there is a great deal of bipartisan fear and anger over this ruling. And it is something that would be looked upon favorably by both conservatives and liberals.

[nolabels]

23. You need to check that idea at the door

The liberal idea that you can control everything with an idea just don't work sometimes. Ideas are only as good as the people in possession of them. When you take a group of Elitist and give them these ideas of what they are doing can somehow be justified, that is just what they will do.

Goes back to the "Monkey see-Monkey do" era of our ancestry

[Modem Butterfly]

29. Either that, or start using the sarcasm tag.

[nolabels]

34. I love Sarcasm

It really gets them neurons firing on all cylinders

The Neuroanatomical Basis of Understanding Sarcasm and Its ...
http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/neu193288.pdf

[OneBlueSky]

24. the problem is that both parties have been catering to big business . . .

for decades, and it's finally gotten so bad that it's coming back to bite their collective asses . . . corporate influence and control are completely out of hand, and both parties are so wedded to the corporations that they have no idea how to fix it . . . some don't even recognize the problem . . . others do, but don't want to fix it . . . meanwhile, corporate profits are dictating every aspect of our national existence, from the economy to war to jobs to healthcare to elections . . .

we need to reclaim our democracy by restoing citizen authority over corporations . . . unless that happens, nothing else much matters . . .

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/

[izzie]

26. This is just an American thing. They are crazy on this vote I think.

You know corp are going to take over. Yes we do need a Hilton Hotel at Walker's point and kennebunk needs the extra tax. My daughter would most likely be happy to see a hotel that could cut her taxes in that town. I really do think that people better watch just who they put in to state office and also in their home towns from now on. In this part of the country, they the rich, have been trying to close beaches for their own use and some times winning. Some lakes are trying to do the same thing. Better watch out. And they are also trying to privatize a lot of parks. Hard to believe all this but it seems to all be out their. Guess we have had it to good.

[johnaries]

28. No, it's not. See this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3935919

3 of the 5 were appointed by Repukes:
Stevens - Ford
Souter - Bush I
Kennedy - Reagan

:hi:

[Rainscents]

32. We should be focusing on THUGS voting for this too, not just liberal!

If all the THUGS voted against this, than, it wouldn't had passed. I blame this on THUGS judges more than I do Liberal. There's only two Liberal judges in SC.

This is what THUGS are talking about, it's liberals fault, this passed. Whey will NOT tell their listener, it was Conservative judges who passed this bill.

[Ksec]

31. admit it and write to the creeps who pulled it

This isnt something we should take without chastising the SOBs who done it, thats the difference between the tow parties. We admit it and castrate the guilty. They lie and look away.

[Doomy]

33. I sold my place

right after bu$h stole the election in Ohio. I was going to lose my job anyway working at the FastyMart. An Pakistani gentleman bought it and was going to replace me with his brother once he got his green card. I hated that place anyway, nothing but freepers buying beef jerky and cheap beer. My mom gave me their old RV and I fixed it up and am living in the RV park that my uncle owns. I get free hook-ups and water and it's not too bad. No cable though and only dial-up. My uncle is worrying about the township taking over his RV park to put in a mini-golf place now. There was some talk of it after they busted a prostitution ring in some of the trailers here. I'd rather have whores around than golfers. Theys are all freepers.

[salin]

35. I have read all sorts of *interesting* things today at DU on this issue

mind you - I don't want to lose my home to ED, nor do I want to see other folks lose their homes. And I would fight like h&ll to get community support to prevent the use of ED for a project that was simply "reprivatization" and of little public good.

However -

lets impeach all five SC justices (bush nominees couldn't be worse (wtf)

lets work with freepers (ya, I trust them a whole lot more than SC justices)

one of the major reasons we had the revolutionary war in 1776 was... wait for it.... the right to own property (did you know that there were no property rights previously? ever heard of monticello? )

Yikes.

Oh - and the pinning on Democrats - the ruling of courts even though the court is predominanty a republican nominated body? Sounds like aiding and abetting the arguments of the far religious right - you know the folks who like judges like Owens - and the folks who want Gonzalez to "study" justices rulings to make sure that they are strictly following federal guidelines... :eyes:

In short - while I am not sure about this ruling (lots of bad - but seems to more validate current practice rather than open up some new can of worms) - I am a bit wierded out by some of what has been slipping in as objections to it.

[Modem Butterfly]

36. What scares me is how few people get my post

I guess I really needed to use the :sarcasm: tag after all.

[salin]

39. If it wasn't clear...

I got your post.. was just trying to add on to highlight some of the extreme responses I have seen on the issue.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that first point - i just jumped into the highlighting (and didn't count yours as needing highlighting because to my read it was very clearly sarcastic... heck if folks didn't pick it up right away that last line was a dead giveaway...

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salin]

40. These are mostly republican appointed members of the Court

who are taking to issue whether or not a community (or state) has the right to ED when the project is considered to be "for the public good" and in doing so define economic development as a legitimate public good - which is the point folks on both sides, progressive and not, are taking issue with.

Funny way to define progressives - only in relation to "sex partner choice". If you followed the last presidential election you would be aware of a much broader array of issues.

[Wilber_Stool]

41. Yes, this was a states rights issue.

A better fight here would be to change the idea of "fair market price" for the land. If this land is more valuable as a high dollar condo, pay the owners like it was.
If Donald Trump owned this land you can be damn sure he would squeeze every last dime out of the buyers.

[boohootwo]

47. Ahmmm. Exactly WHERE did you get this information?