<p>Apprently the Supreme Court decided that it is legal for local government to seize private property--even against the will of the owners--for private and public economic development.</p>
<p>I think that is just wrong. No government of any level should be allow such authority over private properties.....</p>
<p>It's the Golden Rule. "He who has the gold rules ..." :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Yeah, that has to be one of the worst rulings in history. When did judges start making laws instead of interpreting them like they are supposed to do? Well, that's liberal activism for you.</p>
<p>What are you talking about benz? This has nothing to do with liberal activism. The judges interpreted the law correctly and are following precedent. Eminent Domain, which I dislike, is nothing new. You seriously need to read the opinions of the court before you bash the liberals.</p>
<p>This is nowhere near one of the worst rulings in history. Do you remember Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v. US, or Dred Scott v Sanford. I personally don't think you can compare those cases with this one.</p>
<p>I understand the city's position, but if they're going to seize you're property, they should pay the home owners MUCH more than just "fair market value."</p>
<p>Wow, I would have voted with Scalia...</p>
<p>This is why I'm not a Democrat (nor am I a Republican).</p>
<p>"Apprently the Supreme Court decided that it is legal for local government to seize private property [...] for private and public economic development."</p>
<p>The Court only supported public economic development. "'*t is only the takings purpose, and not its mechanics,' [...] that matters in determining public use." (p. 11 of the opinion) In other words, the ends justify the means. Also, the Court mentioned in pp. 16-17:</p>
<p>"It is further argued that without a bright-line rule nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen As property to citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will put the property to a more productive use and thus pay more taxes. Such a one-to-one transfer of property, executed outside the confines of an integrated development plan, is not presented in this case. While such an unusual exercise of government power would certainly raise a suspicion that a private purpose was afoot, the hypothetical cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when they arise."</p>
<p>"I understand the city's position, but if they're going to seize you're property, they should pay the home owners MUCH more than just 'fair market value.'"</p>
<p>I agree. Since the land development is obviously profitable, the value of the properties increase per se. I think a fair outcome would be a forced leasing of the property; specifically, the city can use the land, but the original landowners retain the power to collect a fair rent. However, the Court did not consider whether the compensation would be just, "The amici raise questions about the fairness of the measure of just compensation. [...] While important, these questions are not before us in this litigation."</p>
<p>I read the opinion of the court. Is it a coincidence that the votes were split between party lines? I think not.</p>
<p>Democrats stand for big government and Republicans stand for individual rights. This is a case of big government getting WAY out of hand.</p>
<p>wheee....one step closer to communism!</p>
<p>Our society is hardly close to becoming communism. </p>
<p>Im sorry, but uc_benz, I doubt many liberals are in favor of this ruling. But that is the interpretation of the law. Like JPS mentioned, eminent domain has always been around, just not used for commerical businesses and this is the interpretation.</p>
<p>The problem is Republicans claim to stand for individual rights, whereas they do not. This is why I'm not a Republican.</p>
<p>Normally I try to stay out of these political threads and just read them if I need to burn time, but man, I have to toss something in here. uc_benz, if you think the Republicans stand for individual rights, then man, stay out of politics. Gun ownership, sure, that's one pint for them. But it's on the liberal side where you find things like pro-choice policies, pro-marijuana legalization policies, pro-homosexual marriage policies, etc. How can you possibly say that Republicans are for individual rights? Not saying Dems are 100% for individual rights, but Reps certainly aren't. You want individual rights, look Libertarian.</p>
<p><em>end thread jack</em></p>
<p>To post something on topic, eminent domain is a pain, but be thankful that it hasn't been used too terribly much in the past. Hopefully it will stay this way.</p>
<p>Oh, and if I remember the ruling correctly, it would still allow (due to the wording) that someone could file a suit that says that the government isn't truly acting in the public's interest (either directly or, as the new ruling allows, indirectly) by seizing one's property in this case, etc.</p>
<p>There are only 2 of your "liberal" ideas that are debateable. Gay marriage laws were voted for by the people so you'll have to take it up with them if you have a problem with it. </p>
<p>Abortion was decided by the liberal courts. Republicans don't like abortion because it gives NO rights to the fetus. Sounds like a fight for individual rights to me!</p>
<p>And marijuana is illegal because the public shouldn't be put at a health risk because of the bad habits of other people. Marijuana use and/or it's effects are shown to lead to health risks for both the users and other people who come in contact with them. The public should have a reasonable assumption of safety, and marijuana is easy to contain when compared to other threats (terrorism, car accidents, etc.).</p>
<p>"Oh, and if I remember the ruling correctly, it would still allow (due to the wording) that someone could file a suit that says that the government isn't truly acting in the public's interest (either directly or, as the new ruling allows, indirectly) by seizing one's property in this case, etc."</p>
<p>I think the Court did just the opposite; they want the local legislature to deside what constitutes "public use." Consider this statement from pp. 12-13:</p>
<p>"For more than a century, our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power."</p>
<p>"And marijuana is illegal because the public shouldn't be put at a health risk because of the bad habits of other people. Marijuana use and/or it's effects are shown to lead to health risks for both the users and other people who come in contact with them. The public should have a reasonable assumption of safety, and marijuana is easy to contain when compared to other threats (terrorism, car accidents, etc.)."</p>
<p>What about cigarettes and alcohol? Those are just beacons of safety and health for the users and the people they come in contact with, aren't they?</p>
<p>"There are only 2 of your "liberal" ideas that are debateable. Gay marriage laws were voted for by the people so you'll have to take it up with them if you have a problem with it.</p>
<p>Abortion was decided by the liberal courts. Republicans don't like abortion because it gives NO rights to the fetus. Sounds like a fight for individual rights to me!</p>
<p>And marijuana is illegal because the public shouldn't be put at a health risk because of the bad habits of other people. Marijuana use and/or it's effects are shown to lead to health risks for both the users and other people who come in contact with them. The public should have a reasonable assumption of safety, and marijuana is easy to contain when compared to other threats (terrorism, car accidents, etc.)."</p>
<p>Gay marriages, even if they were voted on "by the people," still represent the application of a conservative value to a society. Consider this as an fictious example: Generictown has a decent population of 200,000. Within that town, every last citizen is of the voting age and is politically active. The town votes on the legalization of gay marriage and 100,001 of the citizens vote against the proposition. So, now because "the people" didn't want gay marriage, 99,999 citizens within Generictown don't have the right to wed the peson they want to. Is it just to grant the majority the power to prohibit the minority from marrying those whom they wish to marry in the name of "societal good?" I don't know, but either way I think individual rights are left in the backseat.</p>
<p>In regards to abortion, I hate it. Really I do. However, the fact remains that as much as the fetus may be alive, it is indefinitely dependent on the mother. Compare this to the elderly relative that is left "alive" but indefinitely at the mercy of machines breathing life into his/her lungs. At that point, a family member is given the power to call off resuscitation attempts. Shouldn't mothers be given that same ability especially if the fetus within them is product of rape or is endangering the mother?</p>
<p>uc_benz - it's funny how all you Republicans bash "activist judges" - of course except when you want a wedge-issue decided in favor of your right-wing ideology. Take, for example, the Terri Schiavo case. You bash "liberal activist judges" for ruling in abortion cases and whatnot, criticizing them for disregarding the law, but when Judge Greer actually upheld the law in Florida by refusing multiple appeals by Schiavo's parents to have her feeding tube reinserted, instead of being a defined "activist judge", you right-wingers go crazy, releasing statements about how Judge Greer is, essentially, a pathetic excuse for a judge. How's it feel when Republican hyprocisy is exposed?</p>
<p>In regards to eminent domain, I am 95% against it. It's maybe, MAYBE, justified in instances such as building the National Interstates or taking drug houses/brothels and turning them into school's and such as part of neighborhood revitalization. But when city govt. A tells Granny that her house/land is gonna be used for a park and then city govt. A betrays her and sells it to a developer, that's crap. And that's what happens a lot of times.</p>
<p>Crypto, if you want to extend this debate to other federal courts then I would be glad to do so. I was talking exclusively about the U.S. Supreme Court. I don't mind mentioning the liberal wackos that are out in California though.</p>
<p>UC Benz
I normally agree with you but your perceptions regarding this are not exactly on target.
[quote]
Democrats stand for big government and Republicans stand for individual rights. This is a case of big government getting WAY out of hand.
[/quote]
True that Democrats stand for big government, but Republicans are supporting true individual rights less and less.
Crypto is also very right about the Schiavo case. I am a die hard Social Conservative, Economic Libertarian but what the Republicans did in that case is sickening. They grandstanded on the Pro Life bandstand while completely ignoring the whole idea of individual rights/states rights. The Republicans basically told Florida, "Okay you've made your decision and now we're going to overrule it just because we can."
And your point about Marijuana is absolutely absurd. Does second hand cigarette smoke not give thousands of people lung cancer? Do people not suffer from the negative effects of drunk people/drivers? Of course they do. The government is picking and choosing what things they ban even though they are aware of how harmful things are. If the Republicans were truly for individual rights, then they would take action, but of course they don't.</p>
<p>Alcohol only hurts people when it is abused. The majority of people do not abuse alcohol. Maybe we should ban cars and pencils because they can hurt people too. It is actually recommended that people drink wine each day for health benefits; wait, doesn't wine have alcohol in it? :D</p>
<p>And cigarettes do not pose as much risk when consumed in small amounts either. Of course it will still have harmful effects, but marijuana will have potentially harmful effects no matter what amount is consumed. Because after all...</p>
<p>Marijuana is a mind altering drug. That is why it is illegal. I wasn't arguing so much for it being illegal for the user's health, but it puts everyone around the user at risk too. I happen to know a lot of people who smoke marijuana, and they become very defensive when they're 'high.'</p>