Do liberal judges favor wealthy developers over regular people?

But it doesn't matter what the conservatives think; what matters is what the Court as a whole thinks.

---

"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 liberals once again have rewritten part of the Constitution to mean something, in this case the opposite, of what it clearly originally meant to convey.

---

If it was all that clear, then it wouldn't have made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

---

"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:

---

I think it's very clear.

---

When you're finally sitting on the Supreme Court, then your opinion will be relevant.

---

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, crash.I'm reading one of the dissenting opinions: It would appear that the dissenters recognize that private parties making the property available to the public is a valid taking; I would interpret this as meaning that, had the dissenters prevailed in this case, it would not have led to the massive litigation that you have brought up.

---

"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:

---

What gave me the impression is that I knew his opinion was a more than reasonable understanding of the Constitution.

---

I would agree that his opinion that the decision made in the Kelo case is consistent with a reasonable understanding of the Constitution; that is not the same as saying that he arrived at his opinion based on a reasonable understanding of the Constitution. In fact, I have just reread his posts on this thread, and I mainly see anti-liberal invective. At any rate, I still have an post waiting for his reply; that post is an invitation (perhaps clumsy or, as you put it, overzealous) for him to discuss his reasonable understanding of the Constitution, if he wishes.Added by edit:
Oh! He just responded. Let's see where this goes.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 18-Nov-2005 11:11 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

quote:

---

This ruling shows the true goal, imo, of the liberal democrats as a whole, which is to increase government power, often at the expense of the poor and middle class.

---

Well, imo, this court decision just shows, at most, the poor judgement of a certain group of Supreme Court justices (a group that is labeled as liberal by the conservatives). However, I have not yet read the majority opinion of this decision; I have only read the dissenting opinion (actually, only parts of the dissenting opinion), so even this opinion might change.-

quote:

---

Now, they are plenty of liberals that agree with conservatives on this issue of taking private land to give to private parties, but they have been hoodwinked into thinking the political leadership of the democratic party is for them.

---

You need to read more liberal literature, randman. I have read nothing in at least a couple of decades that indicates American liberals have any trust in the leadership of the Democratic Party. Quite the opposite; liberals are quite aware that the leadership of both parties are quite beholden to Big Business.-

quote:

---

...I think a more conservative judicial philosophy would benefit everyone in the long run because it will limit the powers of the government to defraud less powerful people in favor of more powerful people.

---

I agree that this is probably off-topic, except for this court decision being a possible example of this. However, I will say in reply that in my opinion a more conservative judiciary would limit the powers of government to a degree that the less powerful people would not have the tools to prevent abuses by the more powerful people.

---

"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:

---

It's frustrating to hear you think that....

---

I have known people like that, and I was honest in saying that I have these suspicions about you. But I did not simply claim that this is how you were thinking, and I fully expected you to respond to this. Perhaps I should have been more tactful -- even holmes seems to have been taken back by my comment.-

quote:

---

Do you not agree that is what this ruling does?

---

No, I do not agree that this ruling does that. Note that I have not yet read the majority opinion, but the impression that I have so far is that the deciding majority agrees that it is not permissible to take property for "any use", and that they attempted to be careful in explaining why they felt that the New London case is an example of "public use".Added by edit:
P.S. Congrats on the admin thing.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 18-Nov-2005 11:35 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:

---

I think the reason is this is such a cut and dried issue.

---

This is actually where we disagree. I agree that the Kelo decision is a mistake. In fact, I will also say that, like you, I find the decision to be distasteful. However, I do not see anything in this issue that is so "cut and dried".-

quote:

---

I am not saying a reasonable person cannot conclude that it's a good thing, but I don't think a reasonable person can read it any other way than as an expansion of what counts a public use.

---

Oh, I agree that this is an expansion of what constitutes public use, and an exansion with which I am not comfortable. I don't agree, though, that this is necessarily the top of a slippery slope that will allow the government to use its eminent domain powers on a whim.My objections are not that it might be the start of such an over-reaching concept of eminent domain, although it might be. One of my objections lie in that the local government has a "plan" that might make things "better" for everyone, and are using this as an excuse to transfer property in a way that definitely will make things better for a few.

---

"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 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