Do liberal judges favor wealthy developers over regular people?

The cut and dried comment refers to the fact the ruling expands the meaning of public use, which you agree.Whether "any use" is an exagerration or not is debatable, but the idea that I am reading into the Constitution what I want it to say, and moreover the whole idea you had a "feeling" that is the case, is, not to be too strong, reprehensible.It's a real problem because all too often here, people have a feeling, an idea, etc,...that misrepresents another's character. I am not just talking about hyping a topic to get it noticed, but some sort of irrational fear or false mistrust and judgment, and it seems most prevalent among the camp that feels they are the most scientific and objective.It is cut and dried that the Constitution refers to "public use" and this ruling expands what that meant in the past. There is no way an honest feeling could be derived that I was reading my own bias into it, imo. I don't mean that you are dishonest, but that something is amiss, and amiss seriously.This message has been edited by randman, 11-18-2005 07:31 PM

Sorry but so far you have not shown that to be the case and in fact, I've pointed out several examples going all the way back to the founding of the Nation where lands have been taken over and then given to private companies because the overall goal was deemed in the "Public Interest".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I would not expect the published opinion to represent everything that was discussed. So we are left guessing.

Not a good analogy, unless you think wives are mere property. On that basis, I guess we should abandon government, because there will always be a few who are hurt.

heheheh... well I wasn't denying that!

---

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

Yes he has. And further, Chiro has shown the clause. The Constitution's wording is quite clear and its meaning cut and dried. Unless you are attacking his point about "meant in the past", appealing to other decisions does not undercut his argument. As it is I have not seen you provide examples that are close to this situation. The opening of a mall is not even close to supporting an industry as a whole or opening up humongous sections of territory that are not readily accessible (or speedily moved through).We are talking about local entities obtaining land for local and private business profits.

---

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

Its a great analogy. Is a home mere property? If that is where my family has been living for generations, or I cleared the land and built the house all by myself, a home may indeed be less "property" than a wife... or shold I say, more important.I could have used husband or spouse if that would make the analogy easier for you. That would be a utopian idea, which means impractical. What it would actually argue for is MINIMIZING govt, so that when it hurts people it is for something real and important, not possibilities of short term private gain.Its funny because we can look at what this case was about and what it ended up allowing. As long as one feels this particular case was wrong, that generally means laws could be made (or cases resolved) so that this would not happen, and yet the rights of govt preserved for important cases you think might come down the road later.

---

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

My point is that taking land and giving it to private enterprise for the public good is not a new phenomenon in the US. It was done in the old Tobacco Roads where highways where land was taken to build highways for the sole purpose of moving goods to market, to the early toll roads where land was taken and turned over to private developers who were allowed to charge a toll, to granting land bordering rail lines as an incentive for private companies to build the railroads, in the Land Grant College system and other instances.In these cases, the argument is that the taking is justified by the public good of creating jobs.While I might argue that the decision in this case was flawed and the justification weak, it is not something new. It is a continuation of procedures that have been used since the beginning of our Nation. It is a logical interpretation of Public Good.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I read your posts and knew exactly what your examples were. My counterargument is that those cases are not comparable.Just because they produced jobs, they were not on the same scale or nature as what was in this case. That's like saying that from this case we can sell our neighbor's property to put up a lemonade stand for my kid. Now there is one more job than there was before.The roads and rails you are discussing provided something on a much grander scale than opening a mall. They were capable of shaping economic dynamics. This was at best about temporary personal profits.Unless there was something about this project which could be seen as different than any other project like this across the nation?

---

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

I would answer that in your example there is no real similarity. You as an individual do not have powers of condemnation.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

The idea that I am reading into the Constitution what I want it to say, and moreover the whole idea you had a "feeling" that is the case, is, not to be too strong, reprehensible.

---

Considering that you have been very liberal in throwing around words like "biased" and even "dishonest" in past posts, your objection is, not to be too strong, incredible.I think that if you want people to feel sympathy for you when I am being a dick then you shouldn't be a dick yourself. I also hope that someone takes note of your post here and will quote it the next time you make an accusation, or even merely hint, that a person is coming to her conclusions based on bias or dishonesty.I am not going to continue on this subject since it is off-topic; but just in case someone objects that what I have written is not the same as what randman has had a habit of writing, I will just say that they are the same; if someone objects that randman was responding in kind after being insulted first, then I will say that by replying in like manner randman lost the moral high ground. I will say no more on this.Edited to make my meaning a bit more clear.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 19-Nov-2005 08:39 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

quote:

---

The cut and dried comment refers to the fact the ruling expands the meaning of public use, which you agree.

---

Yes; but what I disagree with is that it is cut and dried that this expansion is a clear violation of the principles in the Constitution, which is how I interpreted your statements. I do happen to agree that this ruling is counter to what I understand to be the basic Constitutional principles, but I can also see how someone could reasonably disagree with me on this.Now, perhaps someone could make a good argument to convince me that, indeed, Kelo does clearly violate the meaning of the takings clause, but I would suggest that the fact that they have to make the argument at all might be an indication that this issue isn't as "cut and dried" as some partisans of dissenting side would like to think.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 19-Nov-2005 07:11 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 did not say "I", I said "we". I am discussing the govt, which is made up of "us" which is "we". Nice try.

---

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

Holmes is correct, and glad to see we agree on something. It is different because the things you mention deal with economic infrastructure which is what was envisioned at the time the amendment was adopted.This highlights the difference in the originalist approach championed by Scalia and Thomas, and the living document approach championed by the liberals on the court (liberal from my perspective in judicial philosophy). The living document school will take some aberration or needful accomadation, such as using some private entities to build and maintain infrastructure, to expand that principle to the point the clear, original meaning of the language has been completely overturned.In this case, it is quite clear that there is no need any longer for the word "public" in the clause. It is superfluous. The government can now take property for any reason it wants to.

Okay, I can accept that you were talking about we as a gov't entity.Can we explore this further?How does one determine "Public Good"?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion