I am siding with the conservatives on this one, eminent domain

[usregimechange]

The US Supreme Court, in the case of Kelo v. New London, has ruled that city governments may take private property for commercial development so long as city officials have a good plan, do it for the public, and compensate land owners. The case will likely broaden government’s use of eminent domain, a power that has generally been used for making roads and bridges.

The majority is considered the liberal bloc of the High Court plus Justice Kennedy (a moderate). I think they were wrong.

Improving residential areas is a worthy goal but the ends do not justify the means. Is it not ethical to ask and obtain consent before taking what belongs to others? The decision will increase the amount of power and, I believe, corruption of local governments at the expense of the people.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[usregimechange]

2. 4 dissenting justices all Republican nominees

4 of the majority considered the liberal bloc plus Kennedy. Plus, I think you are confused about the ruling. The rich Republicans will be making money and using city officials to take homes away from people to do it. Plus, name calling isn't very mature is it?

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. I think that this is similar to the so-called "free trade" issue

I don't think this decision can be considered liberal or conservative.

The corporatist and moneyed interest of both parties would probably support this decision.

But, the populist elements of both parties would almost certainly oppose it--much like, NAFTA, CAFTA or GATT...


_______________________________________________________


A True Voice of Opposition
--A Voice for Working People
--Not the Elite--
http://www.bernie.org/issues.asp

Who is Congressman Bernie Sanders?

Read this article and watch the short video clips:

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/04/who-is-bernie-sanders.html

[StevieM]

3. Is that level of vitriol really neccesary?

Can't you just say "I disagree and here's why"?

Steve

[Chokey]

4. If you agree with Scalia and Long Dong Silver

I have nothing to say to you

[usregimechange]

5. Welcome to DU

I believe this is the first time I have agreed with Scalia. Take a look at it before you make up your mind. Don't be a fundamentalist.

[wtmusic]

8. agree

Read Stevens' opinion then read O'Connor's opinion (who also agreed with Scalia). This is a precedent which is just aching to be abused:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-108

[China_cat]

14. It's already being abused

2 of the properties being taken to build that marina are working seafood factories that take in approx. $40 million per year and employ several thousand people.

[fricasseed_gourmet_rat]

35. I agree too

I just don't understand why the liberal justices wouldn't support something like this. I'm very fearful for what Wal-Mart will do with this.

[musical_soul]

42. Nothing liberal about this ruling anyway.

What's liberal about siding with a big company over common people? That goes against liberal beliefs.

[newyawker99]

37. Hi Chokey!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[The Traveler]

10. Which makes this person NOT an ass, merely confused

In so many ways, the conservative/liberal divide is a canard. It really does boil down to corporatists versus populists. Not even rich vs poor. Consider Ted Turner, as an example ... a rich man but a man who believes society is best served by elevating the people.

Many "conservatives" are closet populists who genuinely believe that the best interests of the people are served when business and corporations prosper. Many of them are concerned about the savage cuts received by the Small Business Administration and the sudden concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. We must reach out to such people.

In many ways, this court decision clearly draws the lines of battle.

[vicman]

26. Gee

the moderator hasn't deleted all my mesages in this thread yet. Guess they're slipping. Too bad they don't take the time to read all of 'em. Guys, come on. If we don't get a little bit tough we're gonna keep getting walked on. I don't think Howard Dean or Dick Durbin needed to apologize, and I don't think I do either. If we can't gather here as friends and stir up a little dust, where and when can we ever do it? This is important. It's our country and our lives. I can take the criticism and I'll always respond in the clearest way I can to express myself. But I do occasionally like to "upset the apple cart just to see which way they go a'rolling." If I call you an ass, I am not attacking you. I am, however, stating that something you said caught my attention and I have a strong feeling about it. I just want you to respond. If you are offended by my take, I will let it drop, promise. But if you want to discuss it, I'm there as long as you are. I may change your mind, you may change mine. But I've gotten just a bit scrappy since the year 2000. We need to work together. If we're too afraid to roll up our sleeves and air our dirty laundry amongst ourselves first, we can never, ever expect to go out there and give as good as we get from Karl Rove. That's all I'm saying... I expect to be delisted anytime now. It was nice knowing you all. I actually regret that I was too rude for your august company.........

[Bozita]

6. When I first heard the ruling, I thought of the Hamptons and West Palm

Hotels and condos would definitely bring in more taxes than the current structures.

[vicman]

7. No wonder

Democrats keep losing elections.

Everything I said in my post was a total lie. You all have it exactly right. And I agree with you that Dems must apoligize while Repugs are given a pass....

[usregimechange]

9. When the ruling came down I didn't see one DU member agree

with it.

[vicman]

11. Did no one here

read the majority's opinion on this? They actually have a point. This is a complex issue. The law has absolutley nothing to do with justice. This decision will be abused, I promise, it's already started in Texas. I'll post the link when I can retrieve it. But read the majority decision and tell me they are 100% wrong!

[LynneSin]

39. Obviously you didn't do much looking to make that conclusion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1879919

[OldLeftieLawyer]

45. You didn't?

That's because people went nuts without reading the opinion, understanding it, or listening to a few of us who do this for a living explain to them that this ruling changes nothing substantively in eminent domain law.

It merely shifts jurisdiction to localities, that's all. No more Federal jurisdiction. It's a procedural matter, and if you like states' rights, this is a good one fo you.

If you haven't noticed poor people having their homes gobbled up by eminent domain for the past two hundred years, all in the name of development, and very much - if not most - of it done, ultimately, by private corporations, you haven't been paying attention.

How do you think we got the land from the Native Americans, anyway?

So, relax. Nothing's changed, and you can save your energy for things that are fluid. This one was purely procedural and affect mostly land use lawyers. That's about it.

[wtmusic]

15. What the hell are you talking about?

WADR you sound like you don't even have a basic understanding of what this decision is about. You say it will be abused, but you support the majority decision? Why? Because those judges have voted "liberally" in the past? :wtf:

[vicman]

17. So you read the decision

and you decided I have no idea what I'm talking about. You acuse me of "agreeing" with it, which I haven't said. I HAVE said they "have a point." Please tell me why that point I have referred to is invalid. Do you realize that our Constituion specifically ALLOWS for the taking of private property for the public good? And it always has, even before the amendments. Do you wish to do away with that?

[wtmusic]

20. I'm not sure what '100% wrong' means

I guess no decision is '100% wrong', in the sense that there can be positive aspects to it.

But nothing that's good about this decision comes close to outweighing the fact that it creates a huge incentive for fraud. Private developers will now legally be able to take whatever land they want by buying nice vacations for everyone on the city planning board. And guess who shoulders the burden? Poor people who have absolutely no say in the matter.

Read O'Connor's opinion re: the woman who's family has lived in her house (soon to be razed) for 100 years. Is this justice? Is this fairness? So Pfizer will be building a big factory near town, providing lots of opportunities for everyone. Big fucking deal. Let the developers buy the land themselves, like everyone else.

[vicman]

28. I admit I was wrong

about something earlier. The "Takings Clause" is in the Fifth Amendment, not the body as I intimated. There's a good discussion here
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/takings.htm

Do DU'ers think this needs to be ammmended further? And that's actually my question. Fair or not, the Fifth Amendment exists, and I think the majoprity opinion was informed by it. Is it right? Is it just? I honestly don't know.

[wtmusic]

30. "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just

compensation"

The crux of the matter is what is a "public use"? There are reams of pages of discussion on this matter, and it's exceedingly difficult to pin down.

IMO there should only be three categories of uses which justify taking of property by eminent domain:

1. Utilities
2. Transportation
3. Other use by a government agency

and all three required to meet a high standard of necessity.

Obviously this is simplistic. But once we involve the private sector in ED decisions there is a huge, unresolvable conflict of interest.

[cprise]

33. That's only your opinion.

There is no political vision or public policy to breathe life into your definition.

Only the neo-liberal definition that values revenue matters right now in CT.

Change it. Without SCOTUS.

[wtmusic]

34. Um, yes...

and it could be changed to that policy with a constitutional amendment.

Sorry I can't do more than offer an opinion here. :crazy:

[cprise]

36. Constitutional law is not policy.

Policy isn't even law, strictly speaking. It defines the vision of the elected flesh-and-blood government and its attitude toward current affairs (corporate power, terrorism in the M.E., etc.).

Sorry I can't do more than offer an opinion here. :crazy:

I meant to indicate that you have no objective definition to offer, because one doesn't exist.

[Ragnar]

32. I think it needs to be further ammended

The decision, while I disagree with it, is not wholly without legal merit. The recourse here is constitutional ammendment - something that could be done easily(as ammendments go) in this case. Most conservatives I have talked with see this decision in a more negative light than I've noticed here on DU. I am guessing a constitutional ammendment on this issue could be ratified in its first trip to the polls - with the possibility of sweeping all 50 states.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

46. Welcome to DU

I can see you're going to have a hell of a time here.

Enjoy..........

[mcctatas]

12. Maybe the "rank and file" conservatives are finally starting to see

what the Bushies and their wealthy cohorts have in store for the rest of us, now if we can just get them off that anti-gay bandwagon!

[Mythsaje]

13. I agree

and I think what the real point is is that you agree with REAL conservatives on this. The so-called "Repukes" aren't the Pure Constitution (Libertarians and real conservatives) crowd and we all know it.

This helps the Repubs solidify their corporate base and obtain more campaign donations from companies who are considering building a particular location unfortunately occupied by low-rent dwellings. How inconvenient.

Well, a little pressure is applied and suddenly eminent domain is declared and the company gets to buy the people out and bulldoze their houses. Everybody gets a little.

I think it's a crock. It makes a mockery out of personal private property for anyone who isn't one of the upper class. THEIR homes will never be jeopardized in one of these land grabs--just the homes of the economically depressed.

It's an irony that people who might not have jobs because Wal-Mart arranged for their job to be outsourced overseas could be thrown off their land by the State so they can build a Wal-Mart.

This means that it'll be easier than hell for corrupt government officials and an unscrupulous business owners to make a lot of money at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable among us.

[cprise]

19. You can't imagine a different political culture

...where its Walmarts that are bought out to make room for housing and small shops, so join with Freepers to attack eminent domain instead of the heavy lifting needed to create a sane development policy that can look beyond the bottom line.

CT has awful standards here... but SCOTUS sees them as legitimately-defined with due and democratic process. Attempting to impose new definitions would involve Congress. BAD IDEA.

This is why Democrats and American liberals are such losers. There is so much brain damage and knee-jerking on economic issues that the only narrative which gets through is Republican-Lite.

Hear this: EVERYTHING in the Constitution gets abused. How about that 1st Amendment and network television... Brainwashed us into supporting a war they did.

[Mythsaje]

22. I'm not seeing that different political culture

anytime in the near future, so I'm more concerned of the bad things they can do with it now than I am the possibly good things we can do with it later.

Oh, if we gain control, we could possibly turn that ugly commercial harbor into a bird habitat for the heron...or, just possibly, our erstwhile Democrat representative gets a $25,000 campaign contribution to make sure THAT particular business is taken off the hit-list.

It's one thing to be idealistic, it's another to be cynical.

I'm both.

[cprise]

23. You still cannot see

...beyond your rotten star-spangled border.

The world is awash in positive examples, and you cower here in a corner from your own Constitution.

Compare this huge problem, please, with the number of people being sent to prison as felons due to zero-tolerance laws. (Yeah, I'm talking about CALIFORNIA.)

Spare me this ridiculous outrage.

[Mythsaje]

27. That's a problem too...

Zero-tolerance and U.S. drug policy is bullshit.
It's one problem of many that hasn't been genuinely addressed by EITHER party. The Libertarians do, but no one listens to THEM.

However...that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Our Constitution is one hell of a document. How about yours?

[Tactical Progressive]

16. It's wrong and bad, but I kind of like it

for the simple reason that right-wingers hate it.

In fact I think this is a very, very bad extension of eminent domain because unlike true public-policy eminent domain which is relatively rare, and probably getting rarer as public building has saturated, this extension of the principle will be anything but rare. If all you have to do is make a case that your business expansion will pay more taxes, and who can't make that case, then you can pretty much acquire other people's property through governmental leverage with ease.

But again, right-wingers hate it, so there's plenty of silver lining.

When it comes to discussing this with wingers, try these:
1) Keep pointing out the 3 of the 5 majority judges were Republican appointees, so thank Republicans.
2) Democrats are joining in with Republicans after finally realizing that America wants ugly right-wing fuck-you politics that plays for the big boys against regular people. So enjoy the bed you've made by voting for Republicans, and hope you don't get fucked too hard in it.

Besides, I'm all for taking the property of any right-winger with minimal compensation. Live in fear, libertarian assholes.

I know, I'm bad sometimes, but I try to look on the bright side even though it's getting harder and harder.

[wtmusic]

18. Being reactionary about it gets us nowhere

When Republicans show some sense about liberal issues they should be applauded. Liking it because conservatives hate it is juvenile. I'm sorry. My $.02.

[vicman]

21. But honestly

this is important, and we have to clearly think through our positions and decide where we come down on this and how we can make it work for all partys. The Supremes very explicity left an out for this and it goes back to the old bugboo of "State's Rights." The Supremes threw in the towel and declared it's up to individual states to craft laws to make the process more (or less - depneding upon the lobbying) fair. The Texas case will be the first hearing on this, and I'll bet you anything that's going all the way back to the Supremes too. And I'll also bet they'll refuse to hear it. Do you see what's happening here? It's the very underbelly of governing in a free society. I challenge all DU'ers to stop attacking me for one moment and lend their advice as to how this conundrum is to be resolved?

And, yeah, you're all asses, ya pathetic Dems, but so am I... :P

[TnDem]

41. Yeah, well...

That's all good, but the fact is it IS possible that just because the right hates it, that doesn't mean that the decision was a good one and that the left shouldn't hate it too. Some things are just plain wrong no matter what side of the fence you are on.

The right hates Kelo because it expands the scope of confiscation of private property by another entity..The left hates it because it allows poor and working class people to be displaced by a now new class of thieves besides the government...Corporate ones..

Band these two unlikely factions together and make this thing go away.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

48. It is not an "extension of eminent domain"

I know legal opinions can be hard to read sometimes, but I'm getting the sense, reading the posts here, that taking the time to read and absorb what the opinion said has, perhaps, not been the hallmark here.

Where was all your outrage when poor people were moved out of countless neighborhoods in countless American cities to make way for "gentrification"?

The laws have not changed. Only jurisdiction has. Everything else continues exactly has it has for at least the past 30 years that I've been practicing law.

[China_cat]

24. I guess we're finally finding out how

the native populations felt when the Europeans came and took their land.

[wtmusic]

25. People are getting too comfortable with the idea that "might makes right"

in this country. :grr:

[cprise]

29. You want the might of SCOTUS

...to make you feel secure by saying the magic words that you THINK makes everything OK. No time to deal with Connecticut... they cannot offer the absolute solution you desire. Nor are they easy to bully, being the wealthiest per capita in the nation.

And if you are like me you are also seeing red because there is a corporate cape waving before your eyes.

[Roxy66]

31. This decision is one that the Right -wing radio nuts will push....

it could actually hurt our chances to take back some seats....but most of all it goes against my idea of Democratic values. This is the kind of decision that the Repugs used when they labled us as "Big Government". I am ashammed of the "liberal" side of the courts decision on this one.

[Mr.Green93]

38. Couldn't a Progressive local government

use eminent domain to condemn a big box store to put in affordable housing? Couldn't a Progressive local government use this power for good?

[Finder]

43. YES

And that is what is getting overshadowed with all the emotion. What SCOTUS did was state that it was up to local government to decide what is public. The states can interpret public use as they feel fit so the feds are only ruling on what the US Constitution can be interpreted as.

I personally think the cases in question tug at the heart strings because it shows how vulnerable society is to corporations and corrupt politics. I truly hope people will wake up and take a closer look at who owns the elected officials. Last night on PBS they stated the same council that invoked the ED were all reelected.

If you try to look at it from a town or city perspective it looks a bit different. The people are voting to not raise taxes to pay for the running of the city in question and have left some cities with no choice. Although I do not agree that ED should ever be used when the entity is going to be a private entity rather than a public one...In the particular cases the cities are in desperate need.

[Tactical Progressive]

44. No, not really.

I mean theoretically, sure, but it would almost never work that way in practice. Can you imagine the play - and it would be national - with rabid-right media sluts on Matthews or Scarborough or everywhere howling that freeloaders are confiscating the property of successful, hard-working, Jesus-fearing Americans using the god damn guvermint? Sure you can. That's what almost any attempt to use the government to acquire rich assets for poor people will devolve into.

If you want a silver lining in this it's that Republicans and libertarians don't like it. Enjoy that, and while you are, keep pointing out that:

- 3 of the 5 justices that voted for it were Republican appointees
- right-wing "states's rights" are there to stop it, even though they won't
- Democrats are finally learning to side with the Republican money and power whores against regular people, since that is what Americans want

You can't do anything about this ruling now, so turn it to your best advantage and enjoy it as much as you can.

[Deja Q]

47. But if they take one's house to put up a commercial entity...

Doesn't that break zoning laws?

[AirAmFan]

49. Do you worry the TIMING of KELO--maybe just before RESIGNATION

by Rehnquist--is not accidental? Suzette Kelo's case was cherry-picked by the far-right, Scaife-funded Institute for Justice to force 5 non-ideological Justices into an unpopular decision.

Then, the very same week Chief Justice Rehnquist schedules the final Kelo decision, rumors are floated that he will resign? Come on.

Do you think Republicans might be PLAYING you and the millions of Democrats who agree with you, just to be able to slide another YOUNG reactionary into the USSC with far less opposition than that new Bush appointment would face otherwise.

IMHO, the Kelo decision is just like court decisions that nixed "partial birth abortion" laws: The far right intentionally ginned up a probable loss for themselves that would be very unpopular, to help spread disinformation in furtherance of a bigger right-wing hidden agenda. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3936059&mesg_id=3936410 .