Do liberal judges favor wealthy developers over regular people?

You have a nasty habit of describing everything in very biased terms.No, that is not what they decided. That's your interpretation of what will be the consequences of their decision.

I'm sorry, but isn't that a real world consequence of that decision? That appears to be exactly what happened in the case under discussion.I don't like the fact that a board comprised of my neighbors has been given the power to decide what is best for my piece of property, just because we are neighbors. They may have just moved into an area my family has had a house in for a very long time.Not to mention this also opens the possibility (guess no one thought of this) for companies to pay people to buy properties in a neighborhood, get on the board, and then agree to sell all the land cheaper than what the rest of the people would have wanted.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You misunderstood my post, but that is understandable since I was trying too hard to be flippant.Here is what I meant.When I read your posts you generally seem to feel that the things that you believe are so "obvious" and clear that you seem to feel that anyone who disagrees must be stupid, too biased to be objective, or outright lying. In fact, in the post to which I replied, you even stated that it was "obvious" to you what the Constitution says and what it means in this case.Take this recent Supreme Court ruling. I bet there are enough people who feel that it is "obvious" that the Supreme Court Ruling was the correct one. There are undoubtably people who agree with you that the meaning of the Constitution is obvious, but disagree with you what that meaning is.But my guess is that most people fall into one of the following two groups. Many people may have an opinion one way or the other about this decision, but admit that they are not familiar enough with Constitutional law to feel that they can disagree strongly with this ruling, or with the ruling had it gone the other way. I, by the way, fall into this category myself. Whatever I feel about this ruling, I do not feel that I can really form strong opinions about the individual justices based on this particular ruling. Although I may have my own opinions on this, I admit that it is not at all "obvious" to me what the Constitution's meaning in this case is.Many other people undoubtably disagree with the Supreme Court ruling, but are not "one-issue voters" on this particular issue and will weigh this one particular decision against all the other decisions that have made when they decide how they feel about particular justices. So, whatever the "obvious" meaning of the Constitution, this particular issue is not as important to them as other issues.Now if you disagree with this ruling you have a couple of options. One is that you work to pass an amendment to the Constitution that clarifies the meaning of the takings clause. Another is that you work to elect a President and a Senate that will place justices on the Supreme Court that will interpret the Constitution properly. I assume that you are at least doing the second.However, from your opening post and the tone of your subsequent posts you are not posting simply to express your opinion on this ruling. From the way you label the majority of the Court as "liberal" and the minority as "conservative" it is apparent that you are trying to make a point. I am having difficulty in determining your point exactly. Is it that "liberals" are pro-Big Business? Is it that these particular justices have betrayed the "liberal" cause, and that "liberals" should abandon them? You are obviously trying to have an affect on my opinions, but I can't quite figure out what that affect is intended to be.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Not nearly as inflammatory as the ruling. By not overturning the ruling the court effectively said that the constitution does not define public. To overturn the decision would be judicial activism. It would be putting limits on state and local governments that the constitution did not intend.However, part of the purpose of the court is to decide the meanings of various phrases and words in the constitution. The court exists to settle arguments about the meaning of the law. The court did have the opportunity to define the meaning of public. If failed to do so.This idea of taking land for private use by others under any condition is reprehensible. It gives those in political power the authority to use their position for their personal benefit. The corrupt politician can give land to a developer for returned favors.In my opinion the court should have overturned the taking of private land by specifying that public use means use by the government or public utilities for advantage of the public. They could have further prohibited any individual or corporation (other than the owner from which the property is taken) from using that property in any business dealings. There are numerous other possibilities that cannot be exhausted here.Eminent domain should be used to take land for public roads and utilities such as power transmission. The government should own the land (roads) or maybe lease it to the electric company (power distribution). Or maybe the individual could retain ownership and be forced to lease it to the utility.Regardless, the ruling was a major blow to democracy and freedom.Now that the SCOTUS has royally f***ed this up, congress should enact legislation to protect the rights of the individuals. This should be at the federal level. If not, the right of eminent domain could vary so much from state to state and county to county and city to city that it would almost certainly cause massive problems.

quote:

---

In my opinion the court should have overturned the taking of private land by specifying that public use means use by the government or public utilities for advantage of the public.

---

Is your opinion based on your understanding of Constitutional law, or is it based on an opinion that the Supreme Court should always make the morally correct decision regardless of what the Constiution actually says?Edited to correct a typo.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 18-Nov-2005 02:44 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I fear that claiming my opinion is from understanding constitutional law would be misleading. I have read the constitution, keep a copy of it on my computer, and have gone back to it on several occasions for clarification, but am in no sense a constitution scholar. I am an engineer, not a lawyer and not an acedemic.That said, I make my opinion from my understanding of constitutional law that the court interprets and does not make law. Here was a time to interpret a specific meaning.To overturn the mentioned ruling would be the correct moral decision, but the court and the government should not be making moral decisions. Part of being secular is not making moral decisions.Are we in whole, partial, or no agreement on this topic?

quote:

---

I fear that claiming my opinion is from understanding constitutional law would be misleading.

---

Yes, I was afraid that I may have not been clear; but I didn't want to clutter up my post with a pre-emptive clarification. I meant your own understanding of the Constitution, realizing that few of us are lawyers and probably none of us have a JD.The reason I ask is that I often get the feeling from some people (and, to be honest, I am getting this feeling from randman) that they have definite opinions on what the Constitution should say, and that they expect the courts to rule according to their opinions.Of course, I have my own opinions on what the Constitution should say, but that is different from my (admittedly non-expert) opinions on what the Constitution does say, and my opinions on what the Courts should rule is based on the latter.I think that you are saying much the same thing; further, I agree with what I take to be your opinion that when the Constitution is vague or ambiguous then the Court has a little more flexibility in its interpretation.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Uhhh, I think randman has based his opinion of what they should have ruled based on what it says. I think the decision was wrong and against the Constitution.We are entering a grey area here and I think your position is a bit too convenient. It appears you are claiming that when you suggest something it must not be from an errant position, but for someone else it must be.The Constitution is available for reading online so its not hard to find out what it says. How it should be interpreted is essentially up to the political philosophy of the individual. Legally that means the law will reflect a definition that is the consensus of those individuals on the bench.One does not need vast case law to look at the Constitution to understand what it says, and for you to state an opinion on what you think it means. The only reason why case law, or scotus history would be important is to discuss how it has been handled over the years and so appeal to precedent in your argument.Of course one of the precedents is that precedents don't hold much value. Whole concepts have been reversed in a single new SC decision, and as I have pointed out sometimes naked powerplays occur in those chambers reversing longstanding political precedents in order to directly reverse legal precedents as well as ignore specific procedural language in the Constitution.Thus as long as you can cite the Constitution directly, and thus show the words you are referring to, one's opinion on what it does say and how a court should rule seems just as valid as anyone else's.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-18-2005 11:43 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

It appears you are claiming that when you suggest something it must not be from an errant position, but for someone else it must be.

---

Is that what it appears to you? How should I have said it so it doesn't appear that way?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Point to what the Constitution says on this topic, and show that his interpretation could not reasonably be understood from those words. And indeed since he said "clear", perhaps that that it is not the more direct interpretation of those words.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Try going back and actually addressing some of the things I said and not quotemining.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Point to what the Constitution says on this topic, and show that his interpretation could not reasonably be understood from those words.

---

From the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution: I think that his interpretation can be reasonably understood from those words. What is more, I would agree that, in my opinion, his interpretation is the most direct interpretation of those words. (I am assuming that you are referring to randman's interpretation).Edited for clarity, and to add:
I am also still interested in your comment: Does anyone else also think that I am implying this? What did I say to imply this, and how should I have expressed myself differently?This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 18-Nov-2005 06:24 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

No, it isn't. They were paid for the property. It was not just taken.Suppose there is a factory that is spewing pollution. Residents of nearby houses suffer serious health consequences. The state passes anti-pollution legislation requiring the factory to clean up its act. The factory owners sue, arguing that the legislation amount to taking their property (the rights to use their land as they please) for the benefit of the homeowners.You know, as well as I, that Scalia and Thomas are both congenial to this sort of argument.In Message 43, randman writes as if the majority justices were sitting down and discussing sneaky ways that a state could use to take property from average citizens. I'm saying that it was far more likely that they were trying to avoid setting bad precedents, and that their aim was to preserve to states the abilities that they need to reasonably protect the average citizen. I don't like what happened to the ordinary folk involved in this case. But we don't need major brain surgery to relieve the pain from a broken finger. Scalia, Thomas, Renquist were trying to set precedents that could badly cripple government.

Hello, nwr.

quote:

---

Scalia, Thomas, Renquist were trying to set precedents that could badly cripple government.

---

They might, indeed, be trying to do that, but I didn't get that impression when I very quickly glanced through their dissents. Maybe I should read them more carefully, but they seemed to keep the wording very narrow, namely that the fifth amendment allows the taking of property through eminent domain only if the government owns the property or if the public has the right to access or use of the property. It isn't clear, at least to me, that this would be relevant to the sorts of "partial takings" cases about which you are expressing concern.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Wouldn't the reverse finding in Kelo have opened the door for people to sue the Federal government for years and years of public appropriation of private land that was turned over for public use?For instance, this nation's railroads run through land taken via eminent domain and turned over to companies like Union Pacific. Allowing people to sue for that land back could cripple our shipping industry.There would be chaos. I'm not confident that this is a liberal/conservative issue; I think the justices were concerned about the consequences of their rulings.