Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do liberal judges favor wealthy developers over regular people?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 91 of 109 (261535)
11-20-2005 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by jar
11-19-2005 6:15 PM


Re: maybe any use is too strong
Can we explore this further? How does one determine "Public Good"?
Sure we can explore it further. I have no set idea how one defines public "good", though the public part will start building walls regardless how one ends up defining good. But that's not what's in the Constitution regarding this topic.
We've sort of slid from "use", to "interest", to "good" without a logical reason given.
In a way anything the govt does would be assumed to be for "good". What govt would put something forward for the public "bad"? However "use" indicates something more specific. Clearly the govt could say it would be "good" for everyone if Congress gets a giant bonus, however they could not say that everyone can "use" a bonus that Congress might give itself.
There is an indication here that whatever "good" is supposed to come from this activity, it will result in something that the public can have access to and will ultimately benefit from.
Malls are built all the time without govt seizure and they will continue to be built without such methods. Likewise this would be nothing new and could not possibly open up oppurtunities to the public unavailable (in a rather commonplace way) should the seizure not occur.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 11-19-2005 6:15 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by jar, posted 11-20-2005 1:01 PM Silent H has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 92 of 109 (261571)
11-20-2005 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Silent H
11-20-2005 11:08 AM


Re: maybe any use is too strong
We've sort of slid from "use", to "interest", to "good" without a logical reason given.
I guess that's where I'm having trouble. I do not see a difference between use, interest or good. Nor do I see how the proposed Mall would not come under any definition of any of the three. And your example seems to have nothing to do with the question or issue and so doesn't help me much.
Malls are built all the time without govt seizure and they will continue to be built without such methods.
Right. But they are not being built in many of the inner cities without Government involvement. Some good examples are placing sports arenas or malls in blighted areas by offering tax incentives and even monopolistic concessions to developers to try to create jobs or change the characteristic of an area. Look at what was done during the creation of the Inner Harbour Project in Baltimore. Other examples are requiring developers to include a mixture of low rent housing (definitely a taking) before allowing permitting.
I simply don't see where this is fundamentally different than what has been business as usual almost since the beginning of our Nation.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2005 11:08 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2005 1:50 PM jar has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 93 of 109 (261578)
11-20-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by jar
11-20-2005 1:01 PM


Re: maybe any use is too strong
I do not see a difference between use, interest or good.
I'm not sure what I can say to this. If my examples did not make it clear I am sort of forced to keep repeating myself by giving examples that you can say you see no difference between.
I see how you can see little difference between interest and good, but not use. As I tried to suggest in my previous post, all laws and actions are designed for the "interest", or "good" of somebody. What else are they made for? The Bad or Disinterest?
If you could explain how that is not an intrinsic concept, and assumption of actions taken by the govt, maybe I'd start understanding what you mean.
So with actions being all for the "good", you use other terms to describe what constitutes that good. "Use" is the term here. They could have said "control", or "punishment", or anything else which could describe why the land would be confiscated... but they said use.
But they are not being built in many of the inner cities without Government involvement.
??? Nowhere did I suggest that the govt could not help build malls, or conversely whether I would agree with such a procedure. That is totally a nonissue here.
The question is what can personal property be taken for by the govt. This is all quite specific.
Other examples are requiring developers to include a mixture of low rent housing (definitely a taking) before allowing permitting.
How does that take anything from anybody?
I simply don't see where this is fundamentally different than what has been business as usual almost since the beginning of our Nation.
Even if it were how the govt has functioned, doesn't say anything to what the Constitution actually says. That's like saying the Soviet Union's Constitution must have said X, Y, and Z based on what Stalin's govt did.
The only way this would matter is if you are attacking rand's suggestion that the interpretation he is using was what was used exclusively up till recently.
But then, I have to say I have not seen anything you have provided which comes close to lands being confiscated for something other than public use. To this I should state, that some of your examples (even if relevant) are recent and so would underscore Rand's point, rather than refute it.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by jar, posted 11-20-2005 1:01 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by jar, posted 11-20-2005 1:54 PM Silent H has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 94 of 109 (261580)
11-20-2005 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Silent H
11-20-2005 1:50 PM


Finally, maybe we're making progress.
The only way this would matter is if you are attacking rand's suggestion that the interpretation he is using was what was used exclusively up till recently.
Yes, I am saying that I do not see this as something new.
AbE:
Can I point out the ongoing history of Balitimore's Inner Harbour and other similar projects in that town.
You can get part of the history Here
This message has been edited by jar, 11-20-2005 01:03 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2005 1:50 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2005 4:57 PM jar has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 95 of 109 (261588)
11-20-2005 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by jar
11-20-2005 1:54 PM


Re: Finally, maybe we're making progress.
Yes, I am saying that I do not see this as something new.
I will wait then for you to present anything comparable. So far none of your examples have involved taking land from private individuals for use by private parties for limited private profit.
The Baltimore inner harbor thing is recent, which doesn't refute rand's position, and it does not involve taking away people's property. Whether it is a good or bad idea, or whether it involves govt trying to develop an area is irrelevant.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by jar, posted 11-20-2005 1:54 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 11-20-2005 5:13 PM Silent H has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 96 of 109 (261590)
11-20-2005 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Silent H
11-20-2005 4:57 PM


Re: Finally, maybe we're making progress.Well, the inner harbour is certainly within
well, the Baltimore Inner harbour is certainly within the last fifty years or so, but it most certainly did involve condemnation of property and conversion of public property to private ownership, so I don't see much difference.
Whether it is a good or bad idea, or whether it involves govt trying to develop an area is irrelevant.
But I see it as very relevant.
So far none of your examples have involved taking land from private individuals for use by private parties for limited private profit.
I see that as just a cop out. All of the examples I've given, with the exception of the Land Grant Colleges, have revolved around private companies creating private profit.
I just don't see your point at all. Sorry.
This message has been edited by jar, 11-20-2005 04:14 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2005 4:57 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 4:34 AM jar has replied

  
Peal
Member (Idle past 4698 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 03-11-2004


Message 97 of 109 (261691)
11-20-2005 10:39 PM


Supreme Court Members June 2005
William Rehnquist Nominated by a Republican President
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Nominated by a Democratic President
Stephen Breyer Nominated by Democratic President
John Paul Stevens Nominated by Republican President
Sandra Day O’Connor Nominated by Republican President
Antonin Scalia Nominated by Republican President
Anthony Kennedy Nominated by Republican President
David Souter Nominated by Republican President
Clarence Thomas Nominated by Republican President
As a general rule do Supreme Court nominees share much of the same ideology as the president that nominated them?
Looks like both parties are responsible for bad judges.
This message has been edited by Peal, 11-20-2005 10:47 PM
This message has been edited by Peal, 11-20-2005 10:58 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 11:12 PM Peal has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 98 of 109 (261709)
11-20-2005 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Peal
11-20-2005 10:39 PM


dems always nominate liberals
The democrats essentially apply a litmus test to judicial appointments and make sure all of their appointments are liberal.
The GOP fails to realize they can do the same, and as a result, sometimes nominate judges that do not reflect their judicial philosophies. Moreover, many Republicans are far more liberal, like Bush, than the democrats portray them. So it is not that surprising, for example, that the elder Bush nominated a liberal in Souter and also a conservative in Thomas.
Dems don't tend to nominate 2 individuals of such disparate judicial philosophies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Peal, posted 11-20-2005 10:39 PM Peal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 4:42 AM randman has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 99 of 109 (261799)
11-21-2005 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by jar
11-20-2005 5:13 PM


Re: Finally, maybe we're making progress.Well, the inner harbour is certainly within
well, the Baltimore Inner harbour is certainly within the last fifty years or so, but it most certainly did involve condemnation of property and conversion of public property to private ownership, so I don't see much difference.
1) Within the last 50 years SUPPORTS RANDMAN's CLAIMS. Sometimes you can be as irrational a poster as the rest of them. His argument was that the text was clear and was used by govt in that fashion until relatively recently. In everything you have done you have neither attempted to show how the wording is not clear, nor that any other read had been used by the govt in early US history. In fact you keep submitting evidence which supports his position and simply act as if it is a refutation.
2) Condemnation is NOT the same as confiscation of personal property that is currently being lived in and not under threat of condemnation. That you could equate the two is your second foray into equivocation.
But I see it as very relevant.
How can that be relevant when that addresses none of the premises within Randman's argument? He did not say that the US govt has not tried to use land for public good, nor that they had not tried to develop areas.
Its like you are having an argument with yourself. Randman has a very specific position with regard to the issue of confiscating property.
I see that as just a cop out. All of the examples I've given, with the exception of the Land Grant Colleges, have revolved around private companies creating private profit.
Well the feeling is more than mutual. That's just great that all of your examples revolve around private companies creating private profit. What you keep missing, despite my repeatedly telling you this, is that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RANDMAN'S argument!
He did not say the govt does not help private companies create private profit. His argument is about confiscation of personal lands by the govt for patently private use. That a mall is open to the public, does not in any way indicate public use of that land nor public benefit from the confiscation. Or more accurately that same level of use and benefit could have occured without confiscation. The confiscation was used so that certain individuals alone could profit. The lack of confiscation would have simply meant that others would have had profited by a mall being built elsewhere to serve the same public.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 11-20-2005 5:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 11-21-2005 10:04 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 100 of 109 (261801)
11-21-2005 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by randman
11-20-2005 11:12 PM


Re: dems always nominate liberals
The democrats essentially apply a litmus test to judicial appointments and make sure all of their appointments are liberal.
Please please please drop this baggage. All fricking parties apply a "litmus test". It is the height of absurdity to try and play Reps as somehow better on this front.
I guess by this you believe Bush never knew what Harriet Miers' stance on abortion was? Yeah right.
The reason for the "disparate judicial philosophies" are varied. Times make for different conservatives and different conservative agendas being promoted.
Also an individual may change when in the seat of SC justice to a more objective stance than in their personal or earlier legal life. Being objective tends to make rulings more broad in protection and so seemingly more liberal in stance... though in reality that may be more conservative when looked at from the vantage point of the Constitution, rather than temporary mores.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 11:12 PM randman has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 101 of 109 (261865)
11-21-2005 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Silent H
11-21-2005 4:34 AM


Re: Finally, maybe we're making progress.Well, the inner harbour is certainly within
That a mall is open to the public, does not in any way indicate public use of that land nor public benefit from the confiscation. Or more accurately that same level of use and benefit could have occured without confiscation. The confiscation was used so that certain individuals alone could profit. The lack of confiscation would have simply meant that others would have had profited by a mall being built elsewhere to serve the same public.
The local government decided that having the Mall in that location provided jobs and access to services that would not be achieved by having a mall in some other location. Now you may well question their decision, even their motives, but I do not see how you can say that falls outside the understanding of 'use'.
You could as easily make the case using your logic that using the powers of eminent domain to build a road to a specific location is unjustified because the road could have been built to some other location. The city wanted to provide jobs in a given location, to a given population; and to increase the tax base which would then be used for services to the general public.
Further, my use of the word 'condemnation' was in reference to that right of eminent domain and not in the sense of condemning and abandoned or unsafe property.
Also, I understand that randman's position was that such behavior is the result of 'Liberal Courts' since the topic of the damn thread is "Do liberal judges favor wealthy developers over regular people?". I have shown examples of similar uses both recently (in the last 50 years) and historically. These decisions are made initially by a wide variety of local governments and in turn, tested in a number of courts, including the SCOTUS.
I still do not see where either of you see this as anything other than a continuing trend.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 4:34 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 10:43 AM jar has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 102 of 109 (261887)
11-21-2005 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by jar
11-21-2005 10:04 AM


Re: Finally, maybe we're making progress.Well, the inner harbour is certainly within
The local government decided that having the Mall in that location provided jobs and access to services that would not be achieved by having a mall in some other location.
If we are going to leave logic and evidence behind, yes I guess we could say that this in some way resembles your examples.
They only differ in scope, the population which could actually put it to use, the fact that anyone could put it up anywhere else evidences by the fact that it happens all the time, and who could actually benefit from it.
A commitee decides that they should allow a mall be built in their area where they can make some personal profit, though it could have been built elsewhere in the area and the same people could both go to it to work or shop... compared to... opening up territories that by their nature need something big and costly to make them accessible for most people and without it they really wouldn't be.
I realize you want to play the game that you are being reasonable, but it isn't flying, especially as I see you continue to play games with what is the center of debate and indeed what I have said. You can see this in thr following...
my use of the word 'condemnation' was in reference to that right of eminent domain and not in the sense of condemning and abandoned or unsafe property.
Perhaps I missed something, its possible, but I did not see mentioned anything about people being forced to sell their homes in the Boston Harbor example. And even if there was, that misses the point that it does not refute rand's argument.
I have shown examples of similar uses both recently (in the last 50 years) and historically.
No, no you haven't. That you keep repeating that you have does not change that fact. At best you have a recent example which does not change a thing.
Yes, rand has another argument going and yes it is part of the title thread, linking liberalism to the trend he sees. I have been rejecting that argument (if you did not notice). The two are not totally tied to each other.
I still do not see where either of you see this as anything other than a continuing trend.
Continuing trend starting where and when? That seems to be the dispute, as well as why it is coming about, though I disagree with rand on the cause.
And that still does not address what I was mainly defending which was original rights as written within the Constitution. Can we get at least to an agreement that the direct wording is for confiscation for public use, and that that would mean something different than say public control, or public punishment, or a vague public good?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 11-21-2005 10:04 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 11-21-2005 11:25 AM Silent H has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 103 of 109 (261921)
11-21-2005 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Silent H
11-21-2005 10:43 AM


Trying to define subject and responses.
The title of the thread is "Do liberal judges favor wealthy developers over regular people?"
I believe that I have adequately shown that the subject of the title is false. If we can put that aside I'll try once again to discuss your other questions.
Continuing trend starting where and when? That seems to be the dispute, as well as why it is coming about, though I disagree with rand on the cause.
The trend began, in my opinion, very early in US history. Some examples that I've mentioned of expanding the meaning of the term 'use' in the Fifth Amendment would be the early tobacco roads, which were built and maintained solely to get the barrels of tobacco to the ports for shipment. These roads, unlike most roads, were kept level and rut free and regularly graded to make it easy to roll the kegs.
The sole purpose was to aid the private farmers growing the tobacco and the merchants selling and shipping the cured product. The names of those roads lasted well into my youth, one memorable one near where I grew up was "Rolling Road", named not for the hills in the area, but the fact that the grade was maintained to minimize the slope of up hill stretches to make it easy to roll the barrels.
One of the more recent examples I gave was the Inner Harbour project in Baltimore, not Boston, and yes, the rights of Eminent Domain were used in aquiring much of the property. Whether it was private homes or other property is not important IMHO.
The trend in acceleration of expanding the definitions of use as originally envisioned began with the concept of Urban Renewal during the post WWII era, around 1950 or so. The reason it's going on is probably a mixture of motives, one the increasing disintegration of major urban areas and inner cities in the US, the disruption of the tax base as the suburbs grow and greed.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 10:43 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 11:59 AM jar has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 104 of 109 (261950)
11-21-2005 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by jar
11-21-2005 11:25 AM


Re: Trying to define subject and responses.
I believe that I have adequately shown that the subject of the title is false. If we can put that aside I'll try once again to discuss your other questions.
Given that I believe that I also have adequately shown that the subject of the title is false, we can certainly set that aside.
I am only focusing on a defense of rand's discussion of what Constitutional restrictions there are on confiscation of private property by the govt.
The trend began, in my opinion, very early in US history.
Okey doke, before we get into the trend thing, it should first be noted that I was not attempting to defend rand's position of when it started going in that direction. And indeed the trend does not change the fact of what the clear wording says. Thus you could (theoretically) show me a trend starting the year after the Constitution was made, that does not necessarily refute my position, though it would conflict with some of what rand said.
That said, I do disagree with your arguments regarding the start of that trend...
Some examples that I've mentioned of expanding the meaning of the term 'use' in the Fifth Amendment would be the early tobacco roads, which were built and maintained solely to get the barrels of tobacco to the ports for shipment. These roads, unlike most roads, were kept level and rut free and regularly graded to make it easy to roll the kegs.
Building and maintenaince would not be relevant to the issue under discussion, only how the land was acquired to create the roads.
Given the importance of agriculture... specifically tobacco... to the US economy as a whole, I am uncertain why it would not have been a public use to provide a mechanism for easy transport of that commodity. Anyone could use it (them) and it would help drive that industry. The fact that it would have specific reqs show that it is something relatively unique and its scale would be that of public works.
A mall is not an industry, and provides nothing to the general public except more of something they can create for themselves, and will create for themselves. Was there anything that would point to it as being a unique feature and of a scale that would be public works such that individual developers could not have done it?
By the way, how much land was actually confiscated... homes and all... in the tobacco road development?
the rights of Eminent Domain were used in aquiring much of the property. Whether it was private homes or other property is not important IMHO.
Once again, Boston Harbor would not suggest anything historical, only recent. As such, it would fit with rand's position as well as my own. On this specific issue of what powers they used I really didn't see confiscation mentioned. Was it in that article you linked to? Not to be a bother but if you could pull up the relevant quote, I'd appreciate it. I wholly admit I have not read it carefully, and might have missed something. So I'm not blaming you and am asking for a favour.
The trend in acceleration of expanding the definitions of use as originally envisioned began with the concept of Urban Renewal during the post WWII era, around 1950 or so. The reason it's going on is probably a mixture of motives, one the increasing disintegration of major urban areas and inner cities in the US, the disruption of the tax base as the suburbs grow and greed.
Well I am not going to disagree with that assessment at all. Sounds reasonable to me. Intriguingly that would almost fit with rand's original assertion that it was linked to socialism (which he used left to describe). These programs were considered socialist in nature and many were, though I believe their exension into this realm (under discussion) was fascist in nature and not liberal nor socialist in concept.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 11-21-2005 11:25 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by jar, posted 11-21-2005 12:11 PM Silent H has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 105 of 109 (261953)
11-21-2005 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Silent H
11-21-2005 11:59 AM


Re: Trying to define subject and responses.
Sounds reasonable to me. Intriguingly that would almost fit with rand's original assertion that it was linked to socialism (which he used left to describe). These programs were considered socialist in nature and many were, though I believe their exension into this realm (under discussion) was fascist in nature and not liberal nor socialist in concept.
I would tend to agree that they were socialist in nature and that many recent example lean towards Fascism in fact.
What I have said all along really breaks down into two areas, one that it is not solely the result of liberal justices, and second, that the expansion of the meaning has been a continuing trend.
I think the major differences in opinion between you and me fall here...
A mall is not an industry, and provides nothing to the general public except more of something they can create for themselves, and will create for themselves.
I contend that the creation of the Mall was considered by the government to be an industry and that they considered the location of that industry, and the jobs, services and tax base that it would provide were location dependant.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 11:59 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Silent H, posted 11-22-2005 3:59 AM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024