The United States Has Fallen...

[MisterMike]

It's this type of federal level court decisions and law making that makes conservatism look all the better.

These types of decisions should be deferred back to the local community for a decision.

When this comes to your town, you better get off you back sides and get to the town hall to vote and petition these types of decisions. The Supreme Court should never have heard this case.

Now we all have to deal with the precedent.

 

[evenflow1121]

Yes, you are right eminent domain has been around for a very long time, but when you purchase a home, I mean that is probably the most expensive purchase you will ever make. You are never or hardly ever going to get the market value for it, chances are that you are going to pay significantly more, if not the price the house sells for, the interest rate will get you. And what this does, is it allows some guy with millions of dollars who wants to put up another apartment complex and make a few hundred million with it, to make you an offer, if you dont accept then he goes and bitches about it to the city, and then the city makes you take the offer regardless of how much you paid for the home, your memories, your dreams, and everything else that came with the house and made the house special to you (sorry for the run-on sentence), it was a terrible opinion.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The decision means that regardless of what you, or your neighbors want, your local government can basically give your property to whomever they think will put enough cash in their hands. Don't want a Walmart in your town? Too bad if your home is where they want to put the lube shop.

 

[michaeledward]

It's this type of federal level court decisions and law making that makes conservatism look all the better.

These types of decisions should be deferred back to the local community for a decision.

When this comes to your town, you better get off you back sides and get to the town hall to vote and petition these types of decisions. The Supreme Court should never have heard this case.

Now we all have to deal with the precedent.

This ruling has its fundamental logic in 'conservatism'.

These are all 'conservative' judges. 7 of the 9 were Republican appointees. It is a bit baffling that Justice Thomas is on the right side of this decision (the minority). However, I think Justice Thomas, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia are on the right side of the decision for all the wrong reasons.

The Majority, throughout their opinion, stated that the local authorities were best able to determine what is in the 'public interest' when taking property by eminent domain. They went out of their way to express their desire to not take sides on an issue of taking.

"The public end may be as well or better served through an agency of private enterprise than through a department of government."

Isn't this sentence, taken directly from the majority opinion, the very essence of modern day conservatism?

(And just the other day I referred to the US Supreme Court as an institution that believed in a Constitutional Republic).

 

[Don Roley]

These are all 'conservative' judges. 7 of the 9 were Republican appointees.

No, they are not all conservative. You have to remember that Reagan and Bush both tried to nominate judges along the line of Clarence Thomas, but had trouble and had to compromise on later judges.

 

[evenflow1121]

In a way they are all conservative, this is a very conservative court, John Paul Stevens is the only true liberal of the court, and even he is not all that liberal.

 

[Don Roley]

In a way they are all conservative, this is a very conservative court, John Paul Stevens is the only true liberal of the court, and even he is not all that liberal.

I do not know how you can think that unless you are just to the left of Lenin. Ginsburg is a conservative?

 

[sgtmac_46]

I find the reporting of this issue a bit sensational on the part of many media outlets. Again, imminent domain is nothing new. The issue was whether or not city governments could invoke imminent domain for commercial development purposes. The statement that city governments can "Seize" property is not quite accurate.

The process is one where the property that is taken is paid for at fair market value. I have issues with some specifics of the concepts, but in general I believe city governments should be able to develop certain properties. What I take exception with is how much private developers should have to pay for these properties.

I think the standard should be that for public purposes, such as roads, the state or federal government should pay for property at "fair market value." Private developing companies who wish to make a profit off of the property should be forced to pay double or triple "fair market value".

Meaning if the fair market price of a given property is $150,000 they should have to pay $300,000 or $450,000 for the property. This would be the only fair way to go and, while it would not make everyone happy, it would be at least equitable.

That's just my take on the issue.

 

[michaeledward]

I do not know how you can think that unless you are just to the left of Lenin. Ginsburg is a conservative?

Justice Ginsburg certainly is conservative in this ruling, she signed the majority opinion, which included this statement.

"The public end may be as well or better served through an agency of private enterprise than through a department of government."

Is there something in this statement that is not conservative?

 

[Tgace]

Liberalism Triumphs in Court

 

[evenflow1121]

I do not know how you can think that unless you are just to the left of Lenin. Ginsburg is a conservative?

No, it comes from reading her opinions on cases. How is she a liberal, what simply because she is a democrat please, go read her opinions first, say for abortion, they are all pretty conservative.

 

[Don Roley]

Is there something in this statement that is not conservative?

The entire idea that goverment should get involved in the way businesses are run is counter to capitalistic/ conservative ways of thinking. The written decision is misleading. The choice to take from one to give to another is by the local goverment.

Clarence Thomas and others have been hit for being against affermative action. It is not that they are for racism, but rather that they are against the idea of the goverment telling businesses what they need to do for the greater good. They have been nailed to the wall for that. But do you think these "conservatives" would be on the side of the goverment deciding that one use of property should be determined by the goverment when they don't back things like affermative action?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I'm amused at how this is deteriorating into a "liberal vs. conservative" argument - by all means, let's turn against each other with labels rather than talking about the issue at hand.

For example, I believe this may be the first time MisterMike and I are in agreement on an issue. I'd say that was pretty uniting, wouldn't you?

Eminent domain has been around for a long time, as Tgace has mentioned, but the either collusion between or eagerness to please from local governments to big business is appalling.

Ever since corporations were given the same rights as individual citizens (who often don't pay taxes and have ready $$ to suit their purposes), I think this nation has taken a wrong turn. At some point we're going to have to reverse that decision.

So now it's harder for individuals to file for bankruptcy, but your local government might decide to boot you out of your home to make a strip mall?

Yup, we sure aren't valuing our citizens very much, are we.

 

[evenflow1121]

Ever since corporations were given the same rights as individual citizens (who often don't pay taxes and have ready $$ to suit their purposes), I think this nation has taken a wrong turn. At some point we're going to have to reverse that decision. [\QUOTE]

Well, I for one am in complete agreement with you here and especially foreign cartels and monopolies who claim not to be subject to our laws because they monopolized in a foreign country, but want all the benefits given to Corporations in the US.

 

[Don Roley]

I'm amused at how this is deteriorating into a "liberal vs. conservative" argument - by all means, let's turn against each other with labels rather than talking about the issue at hand.

Yes, but if "conservatives" had been allowed to be more conservative this decision would not have gone through.

Anyone remember Bork? He was part of the right wing that beleived that the goverment should not be sticking it's nose into our private lives. He was called a racist because of his views on Affermative Action. Clarence Thomas feels the same. They are not for racists, but rather against the idea of the goverment overriding individual choice for what they own.

But Bork got trashed. Ed Kennedy even said that he wanted the courts to do the right thing and not the far right thing. His nomination went down in flames and a more "reasonable" judge in the form of Justice Kennedy was nominated.

So the idea that the judges are conservative/ right wing/ capitalist because they were nominated by republicans is just wrong. If Bork felt the way he did about Affermative action like Thomas (who voted against this), I have no doubt he would have voted against this too. But he was rejected as being too right wing by the senate and Kennedy was put in instead. And Kennedy voted for it.

Here is an article on the matter.

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id320.htm

 

[MisterMike]

This ruling has its fundamental logic in 'conservatism'.

These are all 'conservative' judges. 7 of the 9 were Republican appointees. It is a bit baffling that Justice Thomas is on the right side of this decision (the minority). However, I think Justice Thomas, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia are on the right side of the decision for all the wrong reasons.

The Majority, throughout their opinion, stated that the local authorities were best able to determine what is in the 'public interest' when taking property by eminent domain. They went out of their way to express their desire to not take sides on an issue of taking.

Isn't this sentence, taken directly from the majority opinion, the very essence of modern day conservatism?

(And just the other day I referred to the US Supreme Court as an institution that believed in a Constitutional Republic).

I see your point about the positions of the Justices, but the sole idea of making rulings like this at a federal level, which affect everyone until something can be done at a local level is what I was getting at.

The taking of private property by another private entity for "public interest" is not conservative. Conservative is: What's mine is mine and you cannot have it unless I say so. To hell with public interest.

This was not a conservative decision by any stretch.

Conservatism starts with "Congress shall make no law..." because just about every time they do, we get the shaft-a-roo. Now, people take their issues to the courts, who are just as damaging.

 

[Phoenix44]

IMO, Feisty Mouse is dead on. This is not about "liberalism" or "conservativism." Follow the money! This is about CORPORATISM.

Tax base? Seriously? Most corporations pay no taxes.

Jobs? Like Wal-mart for instance? Target? Starbucks? They pay a little bit over minimum wage, and keep the hours low so their workers don't even qualify for health insurance. Wal-mart has more workers on Medicaid than any other corporation in the country.

Big corporations usually don't enhance the local economy...usually they destroy it. Small businesses just can't compete, and more people are unemployed, or employed at far lower wages than they used to earn.

And who do you think pays for the roads, police, fire department that these big corporations need? The local taxpayer.

Meanwhile, the local politicians, who may be Dems or Repubs, reap the benefits of nice campaign contributions, sometimes trips and other perks.

This sort of thing has happened all over the midwest.

If you have any doubts, I'd suggest you read "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

 

[sgtmac_46]

IMO, Feisty Mouse is dead on. This is not about "liberalism" or "conservativism." Follow the money! This is about CORPORATISM.

Tax base? Seriously? Most corporations pay no taxes.

Jobs? Like Wal-mart for instance? Target? Starbucks? They pay a little bit over minimum wage, and keep the hours low so their workers don't even qualify for health insurance. Wal-mart has more workers on Medicaid than any other corporation in the country.

Big corporations usually don't enhance the local economy...usually they destroy it. Small businesses just can't compete, and more people are unemployed, or employed at far lower wages than they used to earn.

And who do you think pays for the roads, police, fire department that these big corporations need? The local taxpayer.

Meanwhile, the local politicians, who may be Dems or Repubs, reap the benefits of nice campaign contributions, sometimes trips and other perks.

This sort of thing has happened all over the midwest.

If you have any doubts, I'd suggest you read "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

Actually sales tax pays for most of those departments in my state. Our police and fire departments get nothing from property and other taxes. Furthermore, our local "small businesses" produce very little sales tax. They also don't employ very many people. In addition, the small businesses that Wal-Mart displaces in our area don't pay anymore (and sometimes less) than Wal-Mart and employee far less people. What usually happens is a local small businessman is the only one losing money, but they aren't representative of the largest bulk of the local population anyway.

 

[Don Roley]

IMO, Feisty Mouse is dead on. This is not about "liberalism" or "conservativism." Follow the money! This is about CORPORATISM.

Again, take a look at the orignal article about the case. The local goverment is taking this guys house for, "riverfront hotel, health club and office." There is no mention of Starbucks, Wal-Mart, or any other corportation.

No, the winner in this case is the idea that the group is more important than any individual parts.

The winner is the idea that the goverment is somehow responsible for all of us and can do with us as they will. The winner is the idea that the needs of the many outweigh the desires of the few. Of course, the many get to determine their needs that the few will pay for. And the goverment will carry out the greedy desires of the majority.

This is about tax revenue- not anything like a road or a military base. The goverment can say that one business or property is not as valid as another and take that away if it raises more money. And lets face it- basic services are probably not in danger here. The higher tax base this things will raise probably will go for something like a day care center rather than police forces.

People want more. They vote for goverments that give them more. But when people go to the goverment with their hands outstretched chanting 'gimme, gimme, gimme' that money has to come from somewhere. Well, in this case it is coming from the jobs, tourist dollars and taxes this project will raise.

And the people are fine with it. It benifits them at the expense of this poor guy.

C'mon- think! The local goverment let this go to the highest court knowing that doing so would let the entire world know what they were doing, let alone the local voters. Obviously they are not worried about being voted out of office. I can tell you that the majority of voters in that area probably would say, "it is too bad about the guy, but we really need this....."

Put the rights of one individual in one hand, and the chances of jobs, tourist money and goodies from the local goverment in the other and concern for that guy's rights will drop faster than a prom dress at midnight.

Of course, people just can't admit that to themselves, so they have to have some sort of great need or justification for giving someone the shaft. Maybe they will say something about the children. If this tax money lets them send their kids to a new community college for free they can think that they are doing good for everyone and not just their own greedy desires.

Oh yeah, don't worry about the corporations. Think about the politicions and the voters that gave us the idea of pork barrel spending and worry about how they are going to look for small targets to pay off the voters. The founding fathers first ammended the constitution with a number of ammendments that said what the people by means of the goverment can't do just for this reason. America truely has fallen if the idea that the people can elect political hacks to take from one person to give to another. Because the people will always demand more. And in a world where the goverment is not just a passive protector of the rights of individuals, but rather an active judge of what is "best" for the group, you are either one of the predators or prey.

 

[Bigshadow]

Yes eminent domain has been around since the inception of the USA, however, it is being abused. Usually to line someone's pockets.

It wont turn communist, the corporations are paying to much to control it to lose that controll thru communism.

Actually the cabal that controls this country found that Communism was not productive enough. They found that free enterprise was better. They pretty much have secured the front row at the feeding trough throughout the world.