Do liberal judges favor wealthy developers over regular people?

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

Great point, thanks.

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)

You can probably count on every scheme in the book being tried with so many millions of dollars at stake. The thing holding this back to a degree now is the response of Congress to withhold funding for any munipality that tries this for the purposes of increasing their tax base, but I would not have a lot of confidence in Congress maintaining that policy. A LOT of money will be on the table to get this overturned. The amount of profit to be made is staggering.

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

I am. Well, one point is the liberal democrats in the senate and House and on the judiciary claim to have the common person's interest at heart, and that conservatives and others do not, but it is the exact opposite, imo. 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.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.That is not to justify everything about the Republicans, but 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.However, I don't want to debate all of that because it's new topic. I would just like to see people recognize who supported this ruling, the consequences of this ruling, and who oppossed this ruling.

Both, first it is my opinion of Constitutional law, which is the opinion of a more conservative, originalist approach to the text, which is why all the conservatives oppossed this ruling.I also think it is immoral.

Great post. Yep.

It's frustrating to hear you think that, and the reason is it is obvious that the term "public use" is used, not "private use."I have a hard time with people that would get a feeling here instead of just reading the sentence in the Constitution. I do believe all reasonable people would have to agree that the ruling expands "public use" to mean "any use" deemed worthy by public officials.Do you not agree that is what this ruling does?

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

Let's don't get too off-topic, but suffice to say, Pelosi the entire democratic leadership in the House staunchly backed the decision and oppossed legislation to mitigate the ruling.On your second point, I am aware of "liberals" per society, and most of them oppose this ruling, but I am mainly discussing the political spectrum of judicial philosophies and elected officials, and "the liberal side" there are the leaders of the democrats and the judges they put into power. fair enough, as long as you see it, at least, cuts both ways

I think the reason is this is such a cut and dried issue. It's either public use as the literal meaning of the words, or it's an expansion of that to include, really, any use provided the political backing is there.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.This message has been edited by randman, 11-18-2005 06:42 PM

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