Did Dean really say this?

[RatRacer]

A friend is needling me with this quote from Dean a few days ago at a student rally of some sort regarding the eminent domain case in New London:

"The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is. We think that eminent domain does not belong in the private sector. It is for public use only."

The only places I can find it so far is on Fox News and a few right-wing blogs. If he did say it, this has to be one of the dumbest statements I've heard in a while. Do the names Ginsberg, Breyer and Stevens ring a bell? Geez, it was only time in recent memory I agreed with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.

[lvx35]

1. Oh ho! I see the little error.

Woah, I almost missed that, right wing supreme court. Whoops!
It was the dems who voted for it.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. Its dumb because the LEFT WING of the SCOTUS went for it, not the RIGHT

[lvx35]

6. Yeah, I just edited my original post.

I don't think Howard's dumb though. We'll see if he actually said it.

[madfloridian]

27. What left wing judges?

None of them are actually.

[depakid]

47. ummm- none of those Justices are on the left

Centrists at best- and except for Stevens, corporatists each of them. Marshall and Brennan were the last liberals to sit on the court.

[zanne]

64. These judges are not "left wing".

They're not "liberal", either. It's just the RIGHT WING fooling around with semantics again.

[BlueEyedSon]

67. If you consider that the CENTER of the court is somewhere to the

right of Attila The Hun, they are the lefties.

[madfloridian]

28. I found the statement below. Read it.

They have twisted it beyond recognition.

[CWebster]

2. He's right.

This Supreme Court ruling ran right under the radar because the corporate press does not want to broadcast that your house can be seized for economic development.

[NinetySix]

4. Obviously, it is a misrepresentation of the nature of the majority

and their opinion. But surely the Right Wing can't quibble over a little misrepresentation made to further one's political agenda, can they? Sauce for the goose.

[Skinner]

13. Exactly. (nt)

[geek tragedy]

53. That's my take. Nothing compared to the bullshit that flows from Mehlman

and his ilk.

[CWebster]

68. Slick!

lol.

[doodadem]

5. Why is that a dumb statement?

I interpret it as, public use for eminent domain means using the land for a road or a school--not to the highest bidder in private enterprise/big business.
I agree with that statement.

[Fiona]

7. the problem

is that the President has spoken out against the decision, which was led by the more liberal wing of the court. The right-wingers voted against it.

[faithnotgreed]

8. see #3 response nt

[BlueEyedSon]

9. read it again and some of the replies in the thread.... nt

[HootieMcBoob]

11. The President may have spoken out against it

But he was just fine with taking people's private property when he wanted a new stadium built for the Texas Rangers. They took much more land than was needed for their purposes and then afterwards sold the excess land to private developers for a profit. Bush and his Rangers team was sued by the owners of the property who said they were not compensated at fair market value. I think the owners ended up winning the suit and getting reimbursed but only after Bush and his cronies tried to steal their property from them.

[Geek_Girl]

10. Stevens was nominated by Ford

7 of the 9 Judges were appointed by Republicans and one of those was appointed by Clinton who is hardly a liberal. Maybe you should point that out to your friend. All branches of government are overwhelmingly controlled by the republican party.

[Skinner]

12. Actually, it's pretty brilliant.

Not dumb at all. Yes, it is deliberately misleading, but technically it is not wrong. Consider:

The Supreme Court does think it is okay for the government to take your house if they feel like putting a hotel there. CORRECT.

The Supreme Court is right-wing. CORRECT.

He has put the two together to frame the debate in a particular way. Is it misleading? Yes. It it a lie? Technically, no.

This type of rethorical sleight-of-hand is very common in politics. It's how politicians lie without really lying. I, for one, and glad to see that Howard Dean has the guts to do it.

If he did actually say that, of course. I didn't bother to check the quote.

[lvx35]

15. Maybe, but I'm not sure that's Dean's style

I'd like to see WHERE he said it. It sounds like hooey to me.

[XemaSab]

22. Also, the "liberals" on the court

are pretty far to the right by our standards.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. It is clever until someone catches you at it

Fortunately for Dean, the press has yet to get wise on this. He may be in the uncomfortable position of saying that he agrees with Scalia.

[LoZoccolo]

62. The fact that he's using a Republican strategy isn't necessarily wise.

I would say this because the Republicans have the sheer volume of media to expose to a large audience an instance where someone's being misleading, whereas we really don't. What they can get away with, we may not be able to.

[theboss]

66. Except this is so transparent, it leads to an easy response

All the right wingers have to say is, "You are absolutely correct. This is a horrible decision. If we had more justices like Scalia, we can avoid disasters like this."

Basically, you can turn it into an endorsement of the Scalia/Thomas wing of the court.

[Carolab]

14. I think Allan Lichtman sums it up well.

http://www.gazette.net/200526/weekend/issues_ideas/283050-1.html

Friday, July 1, 2005

The New Corporate Welfare

According to the decision in Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, local governments can seize your property, against your will, and turn it over to corporate developers. Officials need only to compensate owners and claim that the seizure serves some public purpose such as boosting tax revenues or
employment.

This shredding of our property rights is not as right-wing leaders would have us believe an issue of liberal versus conservative. Indeed, it is conservatives who have long insisted on judicial restraint, saying Justices should not broadly read rights into the Constitution and should defer to local governments. It is also conservatives who have been the reliable allies of corporations on issues ranging from bankruptcy to access to the courts.

Regardless of our politics, giving up our property to corporations should be as intolerable as surrendering our suffrage or free speech rights. Rights, of course, are not absolute. With due compensation, governments can take private property into the public domain for such common purposes as building roads and reservoirs that all of us use. But we should draw a bright line against the transfer of our property to private corporate interests, whether or not government says that a development project better serves the public interest than our homes, stores, or farms.

The same powerful corporate interests that covet your private property have the money and clout to make local officials dance to their tune. With the definition of public purpose, under the Supreme Court decision, at the discretion of government, “The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor warned in a dissenting opinion. Your government could raze your home for a shopping mall, a Wal-Mart box store, or any corporate development that promises jobs, tax revenue, tourism, etc.

As several liberal, African-American members of Congress have noted, the taking of property for corporate development is likely to impact the poor and minorities whose property has less tax value than development projects. So liberals need to get behind efforts to protect our basic American property rights.


**************

On edit, a comment:

The Kelo decision, contrary to its plain language about the State finding the entire community a "distressed municipality," multiple state agency approvals, city council approval, an extensively reviewed and desperately needed redevelopment plan, and a city with twice the unemployment of the state average and a dwindling population, clearly states any city council may take any property for a $0.01 increase in tax revenue. Perhaps we must give up on the ballot box and rely upon the cartridge box, for judicial tyranny is upon us. And for those that really hate me for my position on this, let me make a suggestion. Go look for the word "blight" in the Constitution. Didn't find it? Right. And "blight" has been an acceptable use of eminent domain for years. In effect, the Kelo decision found the entire damned City blighted, and ruled that it was not required to stay that way. Kelo was not a stretch, or a change, or anything else unusual in Constitutional law. It simply did not satisfy the gut level antipathy so many have for eminent domain itself.

[90-percent]

16. liberal vs conservative

I think both sides detest this ruling. It seems like a no win for anybody but corporations?

Get the Dean quote, people!

-85%

[madfloridian]

17. He said it in Utah. BUT the way he said it was right.

He said the court was a Republican appointed one, and they decided they could take your home and build a hotel....and they can.

He is right. What's the problem?

He never said it was Bush's court. It is Republican appointed, overall, true. They said they could take your home for developer if it benefitted the community by more taxes. And they can.

I heard it on the video. The way he said it was just right. Since the right wing can't face up to the failures of this administration....they attack Howard, they attack anyone who threatens them...attack attack attack...mindlessly.

[Carolab]

19. That is exactly right, madfloridian.

The Supreme Court is, overall, right wing. After all, you have Sandra Day O'Connor typically siding with the three conservative justices, just as she did in Kelo. So, that DOES make the Supreme Court conservative overall by 4-3.

Furthermore, the main point of what he was saying is that this decision should NOT lie with the Federal court but is instead a state rights issue. So now we see Connecticut deciding that this is so.

He merely is speaking the truth, again. And for that, he gets attacked, again.

I think it's time for another "we've got your back" contribution to the DNC, don't you?

www.democrats.org

P.S. Don't forget to add the ".01" to your contributions!

[Larkspur]

38. Dean and the anti-Kelo SCOTUS ruling advocates are wrong

Eminent domain is a state and local government right.

According to Stephen Burzio, an attorney who represents low-income tenants in New York City and a contributor to Columbia Journalism Review (http://www.cjrdaily.org/archives/001630.asp), there are two significant precedents for the Kelo ruling:

In 1954 the Supreme Court ruled in Berman v. Parker that Washington, D.C. could condemn a department store in fine condition for a larger economic development program in which some of the land would be leased or sold to private parties, and

Twenty years after Berman v. Parker, the Supreme Court in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff supported the 1954 precedent by upholding Hawaii's decision to enact a land distribution program to combat the "social and economic evils of land oligopoly."

Mr. Burzio points out that historically eminent domain used to obtain land for public uses, like highways, caused far more harm to the poor and middle class citizens than that used to obtain land for private development.

Mr. Burzio also says that the real question to ask in cases of eminent domain is 1) What is the best use of land? and 2) What is a fair compensation for that land? These are issues the state and municipalities must work out. The Kelo ruling stated that the state had the right to change eminent domain laws but the way the CT law was written, New London had the right to take the Fort Trumball land.

Fort Trumball, where Kelo lived, was mostly an area with absentee landlords and only 2 or 3 familes actually lived in the area that New London wanted to take and develop. What the anti-Kelo advocates also don't tell you is that the Rowland-Rell Admin supported that development and alloted a $70 million financial package to support that development. Gov. Rell has balked at supporting the New London Development Commission now because she didn't want to lose her extremely high poll numbers (79% at the latest Quinnipiac poll). Rell is still mulling over whether to run in 2006.

[madfloridian]

39. Key word is "blight", and who gets to define it. Scary stuff.

That is the problem, and actually I am very fearful of this. Some states have laws that they can only take blighted areas. BUT BUT the Community Redevelopment Agencies in cities get to decide what is blighted.

And blighted is what they want it to be.

[Larkspur]

42. Well, it's wrong to say or imply that SCOTUS "legislated" from the bench

on this case. They did not. The majority based their decision on legal precedent, not on whim or ideology. Dean was wrong to use this case to bash Republicans with. It's not the right case to use to attack Repukes over.

[madfloridian]

44. Ok. Backing off

It was wrong because it gave an opportunity for cities to get more laws in about blight. I have worked on this a lot. They are going to tear down any neighborhood they wish. I am not talking legally, but I will say it is right to point it out. It is true that will happen now....and the only laws the states will make is blight.

I think this is very counter-productive entirely. It was good to point this out, and people need to know what this means.

I am not going to argue, I am not a lawyer. I am saying Dean right or wrong, I am saying we are acting very stupidly.

Tear him down anyway we can. It is hurting all of us.

[Larkspur]

58. States had that right anyway based upon the 2 previous rulings citted

The eminent domain battle should be fought in the states, which is where the SCOTUS majority returned it.

New London is one of the poorest cities in Connecticut. They needed the development project to bring in more income so that property taxes didn't have to rise and hurt the poorest among them the most.

Yes blight can be used as a political weapon. Justifiably it can be used to force absentee landords to clean up their properties or lose them to eminent domain. Maliciously, it can be used to wipe out political enemies, but that can happen with public projects as well as with private development.

We have a lot of absentee landlords in my town, which is also one of the poorest towns in CT. Eastern CT is the poorer side of the state.

[Carolab]

43. Dean is NOT wrong.

Where do you get THAT?

He said it's not a PRIVATE decision, but a PUBLIC one.

So how do you interpret that he differs from the position that it is STILL a state and local rights issue?

He was a GOVERNOR, remember? I believe he UNDERSTANDS that private businesses and the Federal government do not have the right to determine this.

[Larkspur]

56. New London is run by Democrats, not Republicans.

The SCOTUS majority also said that states could amend their eminent domains laws. Also, Ginsberg, a Clinton appointee, voted in favor of New London.

Dean's comment makes it sound like it was a Republican conspiracy that came up with this decision. It was not. It was based upon legal precedent.

New London is also one of the poorest cities in Connecticut and they needed this development project to help with their income problem.

[Carolab]

59. He did NOT make it sound like a conspiracy.

His comment was ACCURATE: "Republican-appointed supreme court" is what the SCOTUS is.

Also, he did not quibble over whether or not states should retain the right to amend their own eminent domain laws. He simply SAID that it was not right to seize private land for PRIVATE use. He said it was a PUBLIC issue.

New London/Connecticut is apparently seizing the bull by the horns and deciding to legislate their OWN eminent domain laws.

[Larkspur]

63. Dean is right on the first part of his statement but he's wrong about

eminent domain only being used for PUBLIC use. In 1954 and 20 years later SCOTUS ruled that citizens' land can be taken for private development that would help the economic welfare of the community.

New London followed CT's eminent domain laws to the letter and that is why SCOTUS ruled in favor of New London.

[Carolab]

75. If he in fact SAID it, for which we have no proof.

I asked Carolyn's editor at cnsnews.com to furnish backup that he said this and I have gotten nothing.

Also, the statement "It is for public use" does not even SOUND like Dean...it's not typical of the way he speaks. But if he DID say it, I would take it to mean "economic welfare of the community" which is a "public" benefit.

I suspect some heavy "interpretation" of his remarks by Ms. Bolls in all of this.

[sandnsea]

60. Do you feel the earth shaking???

Holy shit. We agree on something!!!

[Carolab]

61. You mean it's a first?

Awesome!!!

:pals:

[Larkspur]

71. This is not the first time I disagreed with Howard Dean but I still suppor

Dean's vision for the Dem Party over the Dem Losership Council.

The other issue I disagree with Dean is over Israel and Israel/Palestine. I support his "evenhanded" policy regarding I/P but have never been enamored of his links to AIPAC.

Despite my disagreement with Dean on these 2 issues, I prefer Dean to Kerry or any DLC clown every day of the week. The only Dem who gets as much respect from me as Dean is Al Gore, especially the post-2000 Al Gore.

[AngryAmish]

69. You may be right as a matter of constitutional law

Takings clause is quite broadly written. It may be up to each individual jurisdiction to decide where to restrict their own power for a taking.

There are huge problems though created. Off the top of my head, I think that these are the governmental bodies who may exercise eminent domain over my property:

1. Fed'l govt
2. State of Illinois
3. City of Chicago
4. County of Cook
5. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
6. Chicago School Board
7. Township (I forget which township I am in)
and there may be a few more.

I don't trust each and every one of these independent body politics to rein themselves in.

Kelo was wrong in that a taking for purely private activities can be ok, but since it is not purely public good (like a highway) there should be heightened scrutiny.

[Larkspur]

72. Most people's problems with eminent domain have to do with money

Compensation is the main problem with eminent domain and the one that can be abused by government officials.

The fear most homeowners have, and it is a legit fear, is that the government will take their homes and not compensate them enough for it. If people get a financial deal that still leaves them with a mortgage payment on the property the government takes or not enough funds to purchase a new home comparable to the one they just lost to the government, they will be very bitter and rightly so.

[sandnsea]

73. Taking small business too

Taking a small business may not consider the life time income the business provides. It may not be alot each year, but if it's somebody's livelihood, that's everything. I don't know, but if a business is valued at $100,000 based on its sales, but those sales support a $40,000 annual income for a family, then they're losing alot more than $100,000. I worry more about the compensation than the actual taking of property too, residential and business.

[madfloridian]

18. If someone will find a post of mine about Dean in Salt Lake City

earlier this month, I posted a news video. It may still be available.

[madfloridian]

20. Here you go. I found the statement. Now just calm down.

Howard Dean: "We have a republican appointed supreme court that decided they can take your house and put a Sheraton Hotel in there. We have a republican government that can tell you when your loved ones get a feeding tube and when they don't."

It is worded quite well. Stop falling for right wing talking points.

Edit for link.

http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=219207

[madfloridian]

21. Oh, BTW, you're welcome.

;)

[madfloridian]

24. Show where he used the word president or Bush.

What he said is true. You're welcome.

[bloom]

25. I think it is good of him to clarify

that Democrats do not support the taking of property for private enterprise.

Esp. if it was mostly the Democratically appointed justices who voted that way.

[madfloridian]

26. That was the original statement. Name the Democratic appointed judges.

I am not up on all of them. Ginsburg was the one that Gingrich picked wasn't she. He told Clinton they would be ok with her. I don't know about the others. Might be wrong. Will apologize if I am.

[Geek_Girl]

32. The 2 democratic appointed judges

Are Ginsberg and Breyer both were nominated by Clinton.

Link

[madfloridian]

33. And wasn't Ginberg agreed upon by Gingrich?

And there is just nothing that liberal about any of them. I was sure about it. Thanks.

[tsuki]

50. Yes, she was.

[bloom]

34. info for you

"Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority which included Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer, based the decision largely on whether the "City's development plan serves a 'public purpose'." He stated that "the City (of New London) has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -but by no means limited to-new jobs and increased tax revenue." "Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment."<>

"Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who dissented along with Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Anthony Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that "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." "Thus, if predicated (or even guaranteed) positive side-effects are enough to render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then the words "for public use" do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power."

http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/6242005_Eminent_Domain_Supreme_Court.asp



Ginsberg and Breyer appointed by Clinton. The rest from Reagan/Bush/Ford.

see (chart at bottom):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States


Even still - it seems the more "liberal" ones voted for the private companies taking property.

[madfloridian]

36. Exactly, two by Clinton, 7 by Republicans. That was my point.

The ones who voted are not very liberal. Why are we saying they are? Why are we allowing others to say that?

They are not that liberal. I am going to do a search, but I read the other day that the GOP sort of all agreed on Ginsberg and told Clinton they would go along.

Why are we calling any of them liberal? They are judges.

[bloom]

37. It seems like people

do have some sort of impression about the justices taking sides.

Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens dissented against the majority in Bush v.Gore for instance.

The main political battle.

Interactive:

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/766/participants

[Geek_Girl]

48. but Supreme Court rulings should not be about partisanship

I bet if the shoe was on the other foot and Bush was in Gore's place those judges would have voted the same.

[bloom]

54. Sure they shouldn't

But that doesn't stop people from being concerned about the likelihood that Bush* will nominate 2 or more justices.

And here Bush* is choosing people from the Federalist society (started by Bork). And Roberts denied being in it - because it is partisan. They are trying very hard to make Roberts seem neutral - they have learned from other nominees - not to be too obvious. That's what I think.


But it is a good point to make - if people didn't like the ruling with the New London case - that 3 of the 5 in the majority were Republican appointees.

[Geek_Girl]

45. It's so bizarre

But it's a right wing frame that is ingrained into the American public's conscious that anyone to the left of Scalia and Thomas is a liberal.

That's why if Dean did say this I hope he keeps repeating it. He's taking on a big job of re-framing the Supreme Court leanings and putting it back into perspective. I think this is why the freepertard are all up in arms about it and to be quite frank I could see why their worried. Because if he succeeds it could seriously hurt their base.

[Geek_Girl]

30. How could it be mostly Democratic appointed Justices?

There are only 2 democratic appointed supreme court justices!

[madfloridian]

31. I don't think anyone is listening. I don't think they are readng words

I posted, the ones he actually said.

[madfloridian]

29. Rat Racer, did you see the statement he made? I posted it below.

It bears no recognition to what you have posted. You posted what FOX et al were saying. They do it all the time. Twist and turn. Twist and spin. Please share the statement with those who say it your way.

[RatRacer]

40. You're right

Like I said, I couldn't find the quote anywhere but on Fox and some right-wing blogs which made me suspicious. But then again, I wasn't finding the quote you mentioned either though I tried to refine my Googling a little to see if there was another quote.

Anyway, thanks. Good ammo.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[RatRacer]

41. Oh goody!

Another person who lives to call people freepers. I asked a question. Get over it. :eyes:

[AntiCoup2K4]

46. Well, let's see.......

1)Username contains a word that Freepers use as a nickname for Democrats.

2) Low post count/Disabled profile

3) Right wing talking points

You get over it.

[RatRacer]

49. Well let's see indeed

1. Didn't realize freepers call Democrats "rats", but if you've ever heard of the term "rat race" you'd get it.

2. Everyone had a low post count at one time. I don't spend my life on message boards/I don't fill out profiles on the internet. Ever.

3. Prefaced the quote with the fact that I could only find it on right wing blogs and such so I wanted to know if Dean really said it. Paranoid much?

[zanne]

65. Disruptor much?

You say you "don't fill out profiles on the internet. Ever." You don't think YOU sound paranoid?

[LittleClarkie]

51. From the rules, under civility

"Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know."

:hi:

[AntiCoup2K4]

52. Ah the irony....

...given how much you have baited the DLC threads this week ;)

But seriously.... can this clown be more obvious?

[LittleClarkie]

55. Not my intention to bait. The DLC threads were over the top, though

and calling those on board who agree with the DLC "operatives" was just not on, and indeed, another violation of the rules.

The DLC ain't Satan. And we didn't need twenty million threads expressing how they are trying to end life as we know it. It's one thing to disagree with an organization, it's quite another to see them behind every tree.

Why give them the power? And in my own way, I felt I was standing up for civility, and for a certain portion of the board who have every right to be here whether I agree with them or not.

[AntiCoup2K4]

57. The DLC ain't Satan

...but they are definitely in league with him :evilgrin:

[Darkhawk32]

70. Only 2 Dem nominated voted for private ED, 3 Rep nom did as well. n/t

[sleipnir]

74. Did Grover Cleveland really say this?

"Sensible and responsible women do not want to vote. The relative positions to be assumed by man and woman in the working out of our civilization were assigned long ago by a higher intelligence than ours."

The answer is yes, and one can find out from doing some actual research on the internet or at the library.