Carrying eminant domain WAY too far

[rraley]

and Bush and Ford would not have had to kiss liberal butt in the Sentate Souter (wretched 2 face) and Stevens (a waist of air) would be has beens on the 9th Circuit.

This is a truely sad day for personal rights. Where is the "Peoples Pary" railing against the taking of rights?

How could the Senate had been liberal in the 1970s and 1980s when Bobby Byrd was the majority leader and the largest part of Democratic majorities were southern Democrats (aka Republicans called Democrats).

 

[rraley]

And considering that the ones evicted are typically poor and/or minorities, you'd think the libs would be losing their minds about this. It's like the Flattops - yeah, they compensate them for their move, but where are they going to move to?

All those people who will be kicked out of Southeast to make way for Nat's Stadium - where are they going to go? It's not like they can take their piddly compensation from the city and buy a new house or find reasonable rent in DC.

Why don't they build National's Stadium on Capitol Hill? Displace all those effers? You ever notice that - that cities never invoke eminent domain in neighborhoods where rich, powerful people live and work? Why do you suppose that is?

The flattops people are now living on Lincoln Avenue or in other areas where their housing is better and for the same price. They made out like bandits in the deal.

The displacement of some people is necessary in order to revitalize certain parts of cities or communities. It's common sense and it is constitutionally protected under the 5th Amendment.

For this case, the Court should have upheld the right of government to seize property with just compensation for the public good, but should have stopped the developments in New London. There has to be "strict scrutiny" as to whether a certain action truly is for the public good and that does not seem to be the case in this matter. I would have represented the homeowners in a second.

 

[vraiblonde]

southern Democrats (aka Republicans called Democrats).

Oh, you mean like Jimmy Carter?

 

[vraiblonde]

Exhibit 1: Terri Schiavo. Exhibit 2: abortion. Exhibit 3: assisted suicide. Exhibit 4: gay marriage. Exhibit 5: tort reform. Exhibit 6: the greatest increase in the size of government under President Bush since the Great Society. Exhibit 7: prescription drug benefit. I can go on for days.

I will give you all of those with the exception of:

2, abortion, which injures others (namely, the fetus in question)

5, tort reform, which makes the cost of doing business higher and raises prices for all of us so that lawyers can get rich

6, size of government, because we're at war and certain new programs are necessary

 

[rraley]

Oh, you mean like Jimmy Carter?

No I mean Henry Talmadge, Russell Long, etc. etc. They were far more conservative than most Democrats...in fact to the point where they were no longer conservative Democrats, but conservative Republicans. There were southern Democrats who were good moderate Democrats like Carter and David Pryor and Dale Bumpers but they were the exception, not the rule.

In the 1980s, the Democratic Party unity score of southern Democrats was 42% overall according to Merle Black, a political scientist (read his book The Rise of Southern Republicans, it's quite a read). That is absolutely awful. Recall that while Bork's nomination was denied, Clarence Thomas, even with his sexual harassment claims, was confirmed. Conservative jurists would receive the confirmation of the Senate Chamber of the 1970s and 1980s. Recall, Abe Fortas, Mr. Liberal, was denied by the Senate in 1968 even though Democrats dominated the chamber.

 

[rraley]

I will give you all of those with the exception of:

2, abortion, which injures others (namely, the fetus in question)

5, tort reform, which makes the cost of doing business higher and raises prices for all of us so that lawyers can get rich

6, size of government, because we're at war and certain new programs are necessary

For 2, some would argue that abortion is a private medical decision in which "potential" life rather than actual life is harmed. I am not advocating that, as many on here should know I am more of a "pro-lifer" on this issue, but I am not going to say that outlawing abortion would be an action of a less activist government.

For 5, tort reform takes the question of how a person should be compensated out of the hands of a jury of our peers and places it in the hands of government. Tort reform is the action of an activist government.

For 6, I agree with you, but still, larger government is the action of an activist government...it does not display restraint.

 

[rraley]

Vrai, what I am trying to point out is that "limited government," "smaller government," and other soundbites are just that - a soundbite. In reality the "smaller government" theory has never truly occured (except for a period under Bill Clinton's leadership when 500,000 federal jobs were cut, mostly in the Department of Defense). But, as I am sure you know, while Clinton had a "smaller government" it was very activist.

 

[vraiblonde]

I am not going to say that outlawing abortion would be an action of a less activist government.

Allowing abortion was the act of an activist Court. Overturning that would be merely setting the law straight.

tort reform takes the question of how a person should be compensated out of the hands of a jury of our peers and places it in the hands of government.

Tort reform merely limits the amount a person can sue for. If you get a scald because you spilled hot coffee on yourself, some symapthetic jury cannot award you millions of dollars in compensation. Juries couldn't care less about how their awards affect a company and, therefore, the rest of us. It's not their money and they have nothing to lose by coming back with these wild monetary awards and penalizing corporations for things they didn't have anything to do with.

larger government is the action of an activist government...it does not display restraint.

Why do you say that? Larger government in the form of programs to strengthen our national security have nothing to do with activism. THAT is the job of the President and Congress, not activism.

 

[rraley]

Allowing abortion was the act of an activist Court. Overturning that would be merely setting the law straight.

I give you that one, though abortion was already legal in 30 states when
Roe v. Wade was decided.

As for the tort reform...if an award is truly outrageous, an appelate court will overturn it (like they did with that poor woman who poured the coffee on herself in the car).

I agree with your last point again; we need more government to make America secure, but that is still the point of an advocate of larger, more activist government and not the point of someone who is all about small government that intervenes less.

 

[vraiblonde]

Regardless, Raley, the argument is not about liberals vs. conservatives or Democrats vs. Republicans. Eminent domain, used for anything other than true public good (i.e. roads, utility infrastructure, etc) is wrong and I'm against it. The government should not be able to take your property because someone else is willing to pay them more money for it. End of story. And in the even that some corrupt local officials try this, the Supreme Court is supposed to smack them down. To me it is a clear case of illegal seizure, which is strictly prohibited in our Constitution, to wit:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[vraiblonde]

And as far as eminent domain referendums go, I am against letting 20 wolves and 1 sheep vote to decide what's for dinner.

Typically when something like this hits the ballot, there's some reason why officials want to steal property - a new mall or stadium or something. And the people who aren't actually going to be uprooted by this are all for it. Why wouldn't they be? They get a new strip mall and aren't the ones losing their homes. So this should be a matter of common law and equal protection, not the majority vs. the minority.

 

[Pete]

How could the Senate had been liberal in the 1970s and 1980s when Bobby Byrd was the majority leader and the largest part of Democratic majorities were southern Democrats (aka Republicans called Democrats).

You answered your own question. To go further, this decision would not have been made in the 70's or 80's because back then the liberal wave was still a twinkle. There wasn't a government would have even dared try to steal someone’s property to increase tax revenue. Now that liberalism has had 3 decades to fester and spread like a fungus on the ass of responsible humanity it is just the first of many absolute atrocities that will now start.

And another thing

It is just vile and I am sick of hearing Democrats point and snidely say "Look how big the federal government has grown under Bush."

Anyone who thinks that the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA, which makes up the bulk of the governments expansion was not needed and a prudent move has mush between the ears and needs to just go ahead and drink the Koolaide and put themselves out of everyone’s misery.

It is absolutely VILE and anti American to vote to allow seizure of legally owned private property so a local government can increase the tax base. Every one of those justices who voted for it committed a treasonous act and should be impeached.

I am not moved to write congressman and senators but this decision has and I am drafting a letter. The problem I have now is that I have to mail it to a stinking batch of liberals who will just throw it in the trash because they know what’s better for me than I do.

One thing is for sure when Rehnquist retires Bush better nominate someone so conservative he makes Thomas and Scallia look like Pelosi and Hoyer. Frist better line up the Nuclear Option and get it ready. This has gone too far.

 

[vraiblonde]

liberalism has had 3 decades to fester and spread like a fungus on the ass of responsible humanity

That was so beautiful, I might cry. :sniff:

 

[Pete]

That was so beautiful, I might cry. :sniff:

thanks :tissue:

 

[Larry Gude]

Oh that's rich...

The displacement of some people is necessary in order to revitalize certain parts of cities or communities. It's common sense and it is constitutionally protected under the 5th Amendment.

Is the 5th one of the 'suggestions' you agree with? One of the 'poems' that you happen to like the current 'interpretation'?

Why is it 'necessary' and 'common sense' for the government to take from one private citizen and give to another in order to revitalize a part of a city? Isn't it common sense that poor people will live in poor areas? What other rights, besides property, does common sense dicate they lose once some developer or corporation gets their way?

Where do the people who, as you say, 'made out like bandits' move to once they're thrown out? Another crappy part of town and start over? Move into your neighborhood? Beverly Hills?

 

[dems4me]

If I recollect correctly, I believe this topic (due to the outcry and the fact that 99% of Americans polled are against the Supreme Court's decision) was brought up on the Floor yesterday in the House. Anyone know what results if any, have come of this?

 

[rraley]

If I recollect correctly, I believe this topic (due to the outcry and the fact that 99% of Americans polled are against the Supreme Court's decision) was brought up on the Floor yesterday in the House. Anyone know what results if any, have come of this?

The House voted pretty solidly to bar the federal government from funding eminent domain projects except for cases of building highways, airports, and other public projects. The vote was like 230 or so to 189. Democrats Maxine Waters and John Conyers were the lead Democratic co-sponsors of the legislation.

 

[dems4me]

The House voted pretty solidly to bar the federal government from funding eminent domain projects except for cases of building highways, airports, and other public projects. The vote was like 230 or so to 189. Democrats Maxine Waters and John Conyers were the lead Democratic co-sponsors of the legislation.

Thanks

There goes the idea of me taking over someone's house... back to the drawn' board

 

[Ken King]

The House voted pretty solidly to bar the federal government from funding eminent domain projects except for cases of building highways, airports, and other public projects. The vote was like 230 or so to 189. Democrats Maxine Waters and John Conyers were the lead Democratic co-sponsors of the legislation.

And what was the position of Ms. Pelosi on the spending amendment? House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said she "would oppose any legislation that says that we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision." In other words, of her typical double-speak, "I don't like it, but it's okay".

 

[Pete]

The House voted pretty solidly to bar the federal government from funding eminent domain projects except for cases of building highways, airports, and other public projects. The vote was like 230 or so to 189. Democrats Maxine Waters and John Conyers were the lead Democratic co-sponsors of the legislation.

If it is not a law it does not count as far as I am concerned. Funding and appropriations votes are temporary measures existing as long as the House decides to keep it that way. When the uproar over this Supreme Court decision dies down the rule will be abandoned and federal funds will aide local governments is stealing private property.

A law must be passed and signed by the President barring federal funds of ANY type going to any government that steals private property that does not fit a specific definition of "blighted". State legislatures should be bombarded until they pass laws that strictly limit the use of ED.