Do liberal judges favor wealthy developers over regular people?

First of all let me say that I disagreed with the ruling and feel it was a horrible precedent to have set. I think I mentioned it shortly after it happened, and thought it was sad to see some individual rights supporters on the bench do a reversal on this.Second I do not see where this would make anyone want another Scalia on the bench. The precedent you find so odious is the same one that they have used against everything, except in this case private property. I can see people being upset with the liberals on the bench, but not suddenly wanting to embrace people using the same bad idea on all other realms of human activity.Third this does seem in line with the hypocrisy of many far right conservatives. They care more about property rights than any other human endeavour. Thus they would protect this right, while ignoring this same logic in other cases.Fourth, you are slightly wrong about why they decided the way they did. Remember it wasn't just "govt" they were handing power to. Essentially what they said is that a local board would know what is best for the local property. Local boards would be made up of those local people. What that does is makes it very important for every homeowner to become politically active, so that a neighbors don't sell their home away because it would be profitable for most of the neighbors.Do you see the difference? It doesn't de facto rob homeowners of power to keep their land, but does create an instrument whereby a nonactive homeowner could lose that power.Of course I don't like that one bit anyway.

---

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

That's just a wet dream. Why would they be willing to trade free speech and control of their bodies for the ability to not have their house seized? That's a net loss.

---

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

I'm not sure what the point was of telling me this.1) I know it already and doesn't counter anything I said. And indeed I have already stated that I agree with the conservatives in this decision.2) The liberal's decision was not socialist, in that socialists would generally not hand over public property for a private enterprise to make private profits.3) What the conservatives suggested was a form of socialism. I am uncertain how you get that their decision supporting the right of the state to take property for public use is not socialism?

---

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

Okay let me be more clear. Their ruling itself upheld property rights. I was suggesting that as long as their reasoning included the ability of society to remove property for public use, the reasoning would have socialist connotations.I would also like to add that socialism does not necessarily mean no property rights, though it often includes limits to such rights. That is something we can agree on completely.

---

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

You are about to see me come to your defense in another post, but here is something which I have to point out... The fundie conservatives, including people like Bush and Co and Scalia and Co (in the courts) do shut down press they don't like. That's why I said this was a great example of their hypocrisy.

---

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

It's not that usual for me to disagree with you, and its really rare for me to agree with randman, but this is what is happening now.In another post you say if it was clear it wouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court. That's not true at all. All it has to be is divisive, or challenged to go to the Supreme Court.To me your argument is like saying a person must be guilty of something if they are charged with a crime. Going to the Supreme Court is merely a series of legal mechanics and choices by those involved in cases. Indeed it can even be naked political power plays which send something to the court.For example in the 2000 election, there is an amendment stating exactly what to do in that situation, yet not only did Reps ignore their own political doctrine of not interfering with state decision (because their guy was in jeopardy), they refused to acknowledge that amendment and created some new concept of having to have a president by a certain date or the nation falls apart. Date supercedes democratic will. Why? That is a pretty ludicrous statement to make.Scalia sits on the supreme court and I think his opinions are worthless. With two appointments from Bush, we could see a majority decision against Roe v Wade and gay rights (all gay rights, including a reversal of the decision allowing sex). That would mean if you disagreed with that your opinion wouldn't be relevant?I guess I am unsure if you mean relevant because it won't change anything, or relevant in that it cannot mean anything.Recent events should have made very clear that just because someone sits on the SC, their opinions are somehow more relevant. Miers could have ended up there, and she didn't seem to have much intellectual power at all.The SC is not a holy court of divinely knowledgeable entities. They are representatives of the people, put into place via political mechanisms, and are fallible just like all other people. They are just as "relevant" as anyone else... only their views carry legal weight.Maybe I'm just being egotistical, but I refuse to have the "relevance" of my own opinion on SC matters decided by may ability to be put into a chair via political machinery and in some cases naked power plays.Intriguingly, if your position is true, that means no democratic or nonfundie has any relevant opinion, as there is 0 chance any will make it onto the court at this time.

---

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

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)

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)

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)

What gave me the impression is that I knew his opinion was a more than reasonable understanding of the Constitution.Yet instead of simply accepting his conclusion as possible, or disagreeing that it was reasonable and showing why, you asserted that his opinion was based on what he wanted it to say (or the court to rule), rather than what it did, and you suggested your opinion was based on what it said.Thus it was more what you didn't include than what you did which created that impression. If you make an accusation like you did, and at the same time exonerate yourself, the best thing to do is provide direct evidence for it and not just state it.I want to say this is not a general impression I get of you as a poster. It seems an honest mistake of being a bit overzealous in trying to make your case.

---

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

That is a silly point. Hey just because they took your wife is okay, as long as they pay for her? If there is something that you don't have for sale, and never would sell because it is important to you, a person taking your property over your objections... but paying you... is still having your property taken over your objections. That is so different a case I'm hardpressed to dignify it with an explanation. Lets just say that once you have a threat to public safety, the public has a right to address it including confiscation. I agree that randman's description of motivation and tactics were hyperbolic and not helpful at all. You are right that they were probably conscious of trying not to set a bad precedent. However I do believe that randman is correct that they did set a bad precedent, regardless of intention.Remember I wholly disagree with the point of randman's argument which is that liberals should give up on having reps in the SC and place conservatives in instead, based on this ruling. Isn't that a bit hyperbolic as well? Even if unintended I would like you to explain how their decision would have badly crippled govt.In any case, if faced with a decision between crippling govt and individuals, I would side with crippling govt.

---

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

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)

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)