NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Eat it, Souter.

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Eat it, Souter.
Poetic justice.

Poetic justice.

I doubt it.

Souter will probably get a very nice check when the rest of us poor dumb slobs would get pennies.

This is a horrific attempt to blackmail a Supreme Court Justice. Period.

What can I say, the universe loves irony.

Almost as cool as Killdozer. Almost.

I doubt it.

Souter will probably get a very nice check when the rest of us poor dumb slobs would get pennies.
I know, but it still is amusing and it will be very inconvenient for him.

Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

From bad reading material to worse.

This is a horrific attempt to blackmail a Supreme Court Justice. Period.

In what way?

The ruling is crap. It's one thing if the community is going to get a hospital it's another if it's a strip mall.

Take the land but give people their due. Even in the case of the person that brought the suit. I thought I read he paied 250K for his property and he got 60K for getting booted.

The ruling pretty much paves the way for developers to pick and choose whereever they want to go since it "benefits" the community.

This is a horrific attempt to blackmail a Supreme Court Justice. Period.

There's nothing to extort. The ruling has been made. It's just an attempt at punishment.

This is a horrific attempt to blackmail a Supreme Court Justice. Period.

The ruling was the horrific thing.

Based on the actual decision, no, this won't fly.

The decision was pretty clear that one of the main reasons that the other use was allowed was that no specific private entity was slated to benefit from it. Thus, it does not allow for a specific hotel developer to say "I want that land for my hotel," and get it.

Now, if the local government decided independently that the land on which Souter resides would benefit the community as a string of hotels or stores, but did not already have specific hotels or stores in mind, it might fly.

There's nothing to extort. The ruling has been made. It's just an attempt at punishment.
Well deserved punishment too. Imagine if a community decided to tear down all of their low cost housing in order to make way for a Walmart and some strip malls. This ruling opens the way for just such a thing to happen.

Based on the actual decision, no, this won't fly.

The decision was pretty clear that one of the main reasons that the other use was allowed was that no specific private entity was slated to benefit from it. Thus, it does not allow for a specific hotel developer to say "I want that land for my hotel," and get it.

Now, if the local government decided independently that the land on which Souter resides would benefit the community as a string of hotels or stores, but did not already have specific hotels or stores in mind, it might fly.

No... The whole thing came about when a business said "I want that land" about the property of a bunch of people in Connecticut.

Now, if the local government decided independently that the land on which Souter resides would benefit the community as a string of hotels or stores, but did not already have specific hotels or stores in mind, it might fly.

Ahh but how do you prove they independently decided that? Local goverments are good at deciding where a mall or a hotel should go or do they talk to a developer first?

San Jose had a case like that. A million year old woman(well 92 actually but she looked it) family owned the land for a long time. Developers approached her to sell it. She wouldn't. All of a sudden eminent domain from the city. She tried to fight but didn't have the money or was it she died?

No... The whole thing came about when a business said "I want that land" about the property of a bunch of people in Connecticut.

You are horribly incorrect.

I suggest you actually do a little research, and read the decision (as well as the dissents) before you demonstrate to everyone how very uninformed you are.

It seems to me that a lot of people are overreacting to this ruling, especially as it by the comments made seems that most haven't even read it (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html).

Eminent Domain may take SC Justice's house
LOL
I saw that one coming. Mentioned it in another thread.
It's payback time!

It seems to me that a lot of people are overreacting to this ruling, especially as it by the comments made seems that most haven't even read it (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html).

Ok I read the donation request page. So what's your point? ;)

Ahh but how do you prove they independently decided that?

Good question, but not covered by the decision.

You can, howeve,r prove that they didn't independently decide that, especially in a case like this where it is absolutely clear.

Local goverments are good at deciding where a mall or a hotel should go or do they talk to a developer first?

In the recent case, an independent counsel appointed by the legislature came to the conclusion that certain areas should be used for broad uses. There were no particular contractors or companies involved.

Meanwhile, the courts have long held that they don't question the judgement of a local government in deciding how exactly to use land they obtain under eminent domain. The court only rules on whether or not the particular use of eminent domain was within the bounds of the constitution.

San Jose had a case like that. A million year old woman(well 92 actually but she looked it) family owned the land for a long time. Developers approached her to sell it. She wouldn't. All of a sudden eminent domain from the city. She tried to fight but didn't have the money or was it she died?

This is unfortunate, but has nothing at all to do with the case at hand. If it didn't get to the court, then the court can't possibly have made a decision on it, could it?

It seems to me that a lot of people are overreacting to this ruling, especially as it by the comments made seems that most haven't even read it (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html).

As unusual as it is finding myself agreeing with you...

=)

I think the real problem is that people seem to think that the use of eminent domain in conjunction with private endeavors is a new thing. In truth, that ruling was put into precedent well over 100 years ago, but people don't bother looking at things like decisions and precedents. It's too hard! It's much easier to read a sensational headline and assume you know everything there is to know about something.

You are horribly incorrect.

I suggest you actually do a little research, and read the decision (as well as the dissents) before you demonstrate to everyone how very uninformed you are.

I'm too busy kicking ass to read things.

There's nothing to extort. The ruling has been made. It's just an attempt at punishment.
We have something called a legal system. Do you remember what it does? It makes decisions about what people can and cannot do legally inside our government. Since when was perverting the laws with the stated intention of harassing a Supreme Court Justice because they disagree with your interpretation of freedom a legally sanctioned punishment? You can guess the answer.

Whether or not you agree with the Court's ruling, this town leader is an ass; making a mockery of himself and his views. I suggest all of you come off of the self-righteous soapbox and get on with a constructive discussion of the ruling itself.

It seems to me that a lot of people are overreacting to this ruling, especially as it by the comments made seems that most haven't even read it.

“Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the … public.” Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.”

I read it when it first came out, and this is the part that disturbs ms. What on this green earth gives them the right to have decided that. I fail to see anything in the constitution which says the Supreme Court can arbitrarily change the meaning of words in the constitution. This is a problem that didn’t begin with this court, but this court could have ended it. The fact that they didn’t disgusts me.

I read it when it first came out, and this is the part that disturbs ms. What on this green earth gives them the right to have decided that. I fail to see anything in the constitution which says the Supreme Court can arbitrarily change the meaning of words in the constitution. This is a problem that didn’t begin with this court, but this court could have ended it. The fact that they didn’t disgusts me.

Did you read about the particular uses that served as precedent?

Let's see: building the railroads - arguably necessary to keep the country together before better technology developed.

Taking a blighted neighborhood in which 63% of the houses were completely beyond repair and making it a productive neighborhood instead.

Taking a situation in which 73% of an entire Hawiian island was essentially owned by one person - allowing an oligarchy and for this person to basically be a slumlord and allowing those people who had actually been living on the land to own it instead.

As unusual as it is finding myself agreeing with you...

=)

I think the real problem is that people seem to think that the use of eminent domain in conjunction with private endeavors is a new thing. In truth, that ruling was put into precedent well over 100 years ago, but people don't bother looking at things like decisions and precedents. It's too hard! It's much easier to read a sensational headline and assume you know everything there is to know about something.

Oh I know that. My only beef with ED is the fact the previous own see's pennies to what he may have spent.

The only thing that stops ED is the homestead act. My wifes family had property that they felt would benefit the community. However, her greatX2 grandfather was smart enough to get the land via the act and ED was tossed out.

For me. If a person was at least give the value of his home then I would have no beef.

I'm too busy kicking ass to read things.

If you haven't read anything on it, you are completely unqualified to have an opinion.

If you haven't read anything on it, you are completely unqualified to have an opinion.

Please keep your elitist garbage to yourself. Anybody can have any opinion they want, no qualification necessary.

This is unfortunate, but has nothing at all to do with the case at hand. If it didn't get to the court, then the court can't possibly have made a decision on it, could it?

Wasn't suggesting it was. Just an example where ED can be abused.

Also, taking it to the court? How long does a case take to make it to the court. They could just outwait her. Which I think they basically did.

For me. If a person was at least give the value of his home then I would have no beef.

I agree.

The problem is that ED sets up a bit of circular logic. Because the land is condemned, it is worth less. On top of that, in the uses of ED that didn't involve something obvious, like a road, most of the areas claimed were, themselves, in economic difficulty. Thus, the value of the property was already depressed.

Please keep your elitist garbage to yourself. Anybody can have any opinion they want, no qualification necessary.

It is impossible to have an opinion on something you don't know the facts about.

It is exactly like me saying "I think that everything written by Charles Dickens is complete rubbish," without ever having picked up a book by Charles Dickens. There is no way I could possibly have an opinion on it - I haven't read it!

Ok, so I've read it. Now please explain why a city couldn't just decide to tear down large tracts of low-cost housing, which generates very little tax money, and replace it with a bunch of new malls, hotels, and conference centers, all in the interest of the "public good".

I read it when it first came out, and this is the part that disturbs ms. What on this green earth gives them the right to have decided that. I fail to see anything in the constitution which says the Supreme Court can arbitrarily change the meaning of words in the constitution.

Umm, the court's role as interpreters of your constitution gives them the right to, you guessed it, interpret it.

Now, that your constitution is so vague and in parts so dreadfully written that interpretation is even necessary, not to mention divergent, is another matter.

This is a problem that didn’t begin with this court, but this court could have ended it. The fact that they didn’t disgusts me.

And your interpretation of the constitution is more pertinent because?

I agree.

The problem is that ED sets up a bit of circular logic. Because the land is condemned, it is worth less. On top of that, in the uses of ED that didn't involve something obvious, like a road, most of the areas claimed were, themselves, in economic difficulty. Thus, the value of the property was already depressed.

But that is the tool for abuse. But is that short term or long term thinking?

The fact they want to build on that spot shows there is value to the land.

But that is a different argument and it would never be allowed....

It is impossible to have an opinion on something you don't know the facts about.

No it isn’t. “I think that quasars are stupid.” I am only vaguely aware of what a quasar is, yet I can have an opinion on them if I choose.

It is exactly like me saying "I think that everything written by Charles Dickens is complete rubbish," without ever having picked up a book by Charles Dickens. There is no way I could possibly have an opinion on it - I haven't read it!

Yes, its exactly the same thing. What you should have said was you are unqualified to have a qualified opinion. All one needs is a brain to have an opinion.

No it isn’t. “I think that quasars are stupid.” I am only vaguely aware of what a quasar is, yet I can have an opinion on them if I choose.

If you want to call that an opinion, fine. However, it is useless in discussion.

Ok, so I've read it. Now please explain why a city couldn't just decide to tear down large tracts of low-cost housing, which generates very little tax money, and replace it with a bunch of new malls, hotels, and conference centers, all in the interest of the "public good".

Unfortunately, that is one of the problems opened up by this decision, as O'Connor pointed out.

In the past, the similar rulings have involved cases in which the land itself was being used in a way that was harmful to the community, in and of itself. In this case, the current use wasn't harmful, but the government felt it could find a "better" use.

You have highlighted the only change made by this decision. Luckily, with a 5-4 decision, it is likely to get either modified or overturned by the next decision. This is especially true as Kennedy's concurring opinion demonstrated that he was very close to swinging the other way, and, on a different case, very likely might.

Umm, the court's role as interpreters of your constitution gives them the right to, you guessed it, interpret it.

Now, that your constitution is so vague and in parts so dreadfully written that interpretation is even necessary, not to mention divergent, is another matter.

The constitution never gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret. They are to make rulings based on the supreme law of the land, which is the constitution. It isn’t “dreadfully written”, it is a recipe for minimalist government that should be taken literally. It is not a religious text that needs interpretation. It is a legal document. It is divergent in places, because an amendment changes the constitution.

And your interpretation of the constitution is more pertinent because?

Like I said, it doesn’t need interpretation.

Now, that your constitution is so vague and in parts so dreadfully written that interpretation is even necessary, not to mention divergent, is another matter.
Having a vague Constitution is one of the best aspects of American democracy. It's a stupid constitution that enshrines policies rather than principles. Interpretation allows for the Constitution to change in meaning as the times view different words in different times. There's a reason why the thousand page EU Constitution failed while the US Constitution is the most successful one in history.

Like I said, it doesn’t need interpretation.

Those who wrote it would disagree with you.

Meanwhile, if it doesn't need interpretation, say goodbye to the vast majority of the rights that you currently have. After all, if they aren't specifically enumerated, you don't have them.

Those who wrote it would disagree with you.

Correction: some of the writers would disagree with me.

Meanwhile, if it doesn't need interpretation, say goodbye to the vast majority of the rights that you currently have. After all, if they aren't specifically enumerated, you don't have them.

The ninth amendment guarantees enumerated rights as long as the people (meaning a majority) wish to retain them.

The ninth amendment guarantees enumerated rights as long as the people (meaning a majority) wish to retain them.
Factually incorrect. It means all rights not granted in the Constitution to the government belong to the people. The part of the Constitution which says what you want is Article 5 - the Constitutional amendment process(es).

The ninth amendment guarantees enumerated rights as long as the people (meaning a majority) wish to retain them.

No, it doesn't.

It just says "This document should not be construed as enumerating all possible rights." Thus, it leaves what "other" rights there may be, and what uses fall under those that are enumerated..........up to interpretation!!!

Meanwhile, I'm glad that we only have rights if the majority agrees with them. That's wonderful. Does that mean we can go back to putting blacks in the back of the bus?

The constitution never gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret. They are to make rulings based on the supreme law of the land, which is the constitution.

Yes, which in itself seems to need interpreting and amending to say the things it apparently seems to say, such as "all men are created equal" to later on becoming "no, really, all men are created equal, even black men", to even later becoming "no, really, 'men' really means men and women", and even later being "no, really, we already said black men and women, too!" and so on and so forth.

It isn’t “dreadfully written”, it is a recipe for minimalist government that should be taken literally.

Ah, yes, the clarity of for instance the second amendment is astounding. :rolleyes:

It is not a religious text that needs interpretation. It is a legal document.

And legal documents are interpreted all the time - that's what courts and judicial review are for. Your constitution just happens to be so vague and not very well written that interpreting it seems to require so much labour in sheer guessing and opinion that it's quite humorous to bystanders.

It is divergent in places, because an amendment changes the constitution.

Interpretation. Reading comprehension is a quasi-virtue.

Like I said, it doesn’t need interpretation.

Then you know nothing of matters of law.

Having a vague Constitution is one of the best aspects of American democracy. It's a stupid constitution that enshrines policies rather than principles. Interpretation allows for the Constitution to change in meaning as the times view different words in different times.

No, that's what changes of constitutions and amendments are supposed to do when you have a constitution that does what it is supposed to do: withstand interpretations du jour and act as a judicial anchor. And even the "principles" enshrined in your constitution are done so to such a poor degree that you need such a mammoth of a Supreme Court to make sense of them.

There's a reason why the thousand page EU Constitution failed while the US Constitution is the most successful one in history.

The EU constitution is of no matter, as it was bad. That doesn't make the American one good or even successful at all, as it seems that the subsequently patched on guess-work as to what it means and says would seem to explain its longevity despite such obvious flaws.

Is it really poetic justice if someone just sets it up to make a point?

Factually incorrect. It means all rights not granted in the Constitution to the government belong to the people

I thought that is what I said. They belong to the people, so we get to vote on it.

Yes, which in itself seems to need interpreting and amending to say the things it apparently seems to say, such as "all men are created equal" to later on becoming "no, really, all men are created equal, even black men", to even later becoming "no, really, 'men' really means men and women", and even later being "no, really, we already said black men and women, too!" and so on and so forth.

It was the original intent of the founders for amendments.

Ah, yes, the clarity of for instance the second amendment is astounding.

Makes sense to me. Every male citizen was considered part of the militia, therefore every man should be ablt to own a gun to protect himself from the government.

And legal documents are interpreted all the time - that's what courts and judicial review are for. Your constitution just happens to be so vague and not very well written that interpreting it seems to require so much labour in sheer guessing and opinion that it's quite humorous to bystanders.

According to our constitution, the courts are for deciding civil and legal cases based on what the law says. You Europeans keep watching. You might just learn something.

Then you know nothing of matters of law.

Probably not. However, what I do know is original intent.

Probably not. However, what I do know is original intent.

Ok, so you are either God, or you have a time machine and went back in time to talk to every single person involved in the writing of the Constitution.

Which is it?

Ok, so you are either God, or you have a time machine and went back in time to talk to every single person involved in the writing of the Constitution.

I have the Constitution, which clearly states what the founders believed government should be composed of. You simply need to actually read it, instead of trying to glean hidden meanings from it.

It was the original intent of the founders for amendments.

Ah, yes, so what they "meant" is yet again the guessing game.

Makes sense to me. Every male citizen was considered part of the militia, therefore every man should be ablt to own a gun to protect himself from the government.

Your interpretation. Others do not interpret it that way. Your courts have interpreted it differently. A clear "all are entitled to have weapons of such and such kind" is nowhere to be found in this haze of "intent" and "I think it says that" and "it makes sense to me".

According to our constitution, the courts are for deciding civil and legal cases based on what the law says.

And what the law says is up to the courts to interpret. That's why clarity is paramount for the good legislator - something which the "founding fathers" as you call them hardly seem to have had as an attribute.

You Europeans keep watching. You might just learn something.

Learn how to bicker over the meaning of an outdated document in dire need of an overhaul? I hope that we'd rather not go there.

Probably not. However, what I do know is original intent.

You not being the originator of the intent makes you a mere guesser.

Good stuff, I hope that hotel does get put up!

[qoute]After all, if they aren't specifically enumerated, you don't have them.[/quote]

Actually, the 9th amendment to the constitution says that you do.

Interpretation is not the problem with this ruling.

The problem with this ruling is that it bases bad interpretation on bad precendent. The logic of the ruling seems to be "We didn't interfere with some land-grabs before, and we didn't interfere with the localities before, so we won't now." I found the first dissenting opinion to be more cogent, because the Justice considered the ramifications of this ruling rather than just sliding down a slope in response to a push.

The precedental cases cited were substantively different. This case is the point at which intervention by the higher court should have drawn the line between public interest and private interest. Not doing so shows that the interests of the court lie with commerce and taxation, not with the citizens.

I'd want my Supreme Court Justices to take the attitude of "The legislature displacing citizens purely for the public purpose of higher tax income is evil and should be prohibited". Thier attitude seems to be the opposite. The interests of the money collectors are penultimate in thier minds.

This attitude shows up also in last week's peer-to-peer software ruling, where the doctine of non-infringing use was struck down smartly. While undoutbtedly Napster and its ilk are indeed used in some illegal ways, that is a matter between the IP holders and the consumers of the IP. This ruling is the foot in the door needed for the RIAA to bring suit against common carriers and software duplicators in general. These suits will occur, in order to feed the media companies' paranoid need to control and charge for every transition from inception to consumption.

No, that's what changes of constitutions and amendments are supposed to do when you have a constitution that does what it is supposed to do: withstand interpretations du jour and act as a judicial anchor. And even the "principles" enshrined in your constitution are done so to such a poor degree that you need such a mammoth of a Supreme Court to make sense of them.
The amendment process in every constitution is incredibly complicated, and rightly so. Treating the Constitution as something that can be changed as easily as a law makes it seem no better than a law on its own. If that's so, than there's no need for a legislative branch - just a constitution and absolute democracy. But I don't think I need to explain how unworkable absolute democracy is.

I wouldn't call this Supreme Court a "mammoth." It has 9 people, and tends to make reasonable rulings that are based in the Constitution rather than policy expedients (with the notable exception of Bush v. Gore).

The EU constitution is of no matter, as it was bad. That doesn't make the American one good or even successful at all, as it seems that the subsequently patched on guess-work as to what it means and says would seem to explain its longevity despite such obvious flaws.
I need a point of reference to explain why the American system in this case is the best one. Provide one.

Ah, yes, so what they "meant" is yet again the guessing game.

Have you even read the American Constitution? The fifth article clearly sets up a system for making amendments, and it was only ratified under the condition that the first ten amendments (the bill of rights) would be passed shortly after the constitution took effect.

I have the Constitution, which clearly states what the founders believed government should be composed of. You simply need to actually read it, instead of trying to glean hidden meanings from it.

It has nothing to do with hidden meanings. Language is naturally open to interpretation - no matter what you say.

Good to know that you are infallible, though.

Actually, the 9th amendment to the constitution says that you do.

No, it doesn't. Not directly.

Interpretation is not the problem with this ruling.

The problem with this ruling is that it bases bad interpretation on bad precendent. The logic of the ruling seems to be "We didn't interfere with some land-grabs before, and we didn't interfere with the localities before, so we won't now."

These two statements are incompatible. The latter describes (albeit in a biased manner) the way in which the decision came out of interpretation.

I found the first dissenting opinion to be more cogent, because the Justice considered the ramifications of this ruling rather than just sliding down a slope in response to a push.

Me too. I think O'Connor had it right on this one.

I'd want my Supreme Court Justices to take the attitude of "The legislature displacing citizens purely for the public purpose of higher tax income is evil and should be prohibited". Thier attitude seems to be the opposite. The interests of the money collectors are penultimate in thier minds.

One problem here. Economic depression in an area has to do with a lot more than tax revenues.

Good to know that you are infallible, though.

Never said I was infallible. I could be wrong, very wrong. However, unless YOU have a time machine how do you know that you are not wrong? Surely, though, you can’t deny that changing “public use” to “public purpose” is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

Never said I was infallible. I could be wrong, very wrong. However, unless YOU have a time machine how do you know that you are not wrong?

I don't. But I'm not the one claiming to have absolute knowledge of original intent, now am I?

Surely, though, you can’t deny that changing “public use” to “public purpose” is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

Perhaps, but no more so than many of the decisions I think you would agree with. Stretching "right to due process" to "right to have Miranda warnings read," for instance, was a bit of a stretch - but I don't see many people arguing that it wasn't a good ruling.

Perhaps, but no more so than many of the decisions I think you would agree with. Stretching "right to due process" to "right to have Miranda warnings read," for instance, was a bit of a stretch - but I don't see many people arguing that it wasn't a good ruling.

I concede the point. However, good decisions made in the past do not justify bad ones made in the present.

I concede the point. However, good decisions made in the past do not justify bad ones made in the present.

Of course not.

The only people I have argued against are those yelling, "THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING! LET'S IMPEACH THE JUSTICES BECAUSE THEY MADE A DECISION WE DON'T AGREE WITH!"

Based on the actual decision, no, this won't fly.

The decision was pretty clear that one of the main reasons that the other use was allowed was that no specific private entity was slated to benefit from it. Thus, it does not allow for a specific hotel developer to say "I want that land for my hotel," and get it.

Now, if the local government decided independently that the land on which Souter resides would benefit the community as a string of hotels or stores, but did not already have specific hotels or stores in mind, it might fly.
Yes, but the decision also specifically noted that there was no real way to police that particular fact. Which means he's screwed anyway.

The only people I have argued against are those yelling, "THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING! LET'S IMPEACH THE JUSTICES BECAUSE THEY MADE A DECISION WE DON'T AGREE WITH!"

Bah. We don’t need to impeach them. It will be reversed sooner or later.

Perhaps, but no more so than many of the decisions I think you would agree with. Stretching "right to due process" to "right to have Miranda warnings read," for instance, was a bit of a stretch - but I don't see many people arguing that it wasn't a good ruling.
Not really, if you don't know what due process is then you cannot benefit from it. Ergo, the only way to truly give people due process would be to either teach it to them before they ever get arrested or just read it to them on the scene.

Poetic justice.
Serves the b*stard right!

For me. If a person was at least give the value of his home then I would have no beef.

The problem is that there is no such thing as objective value. The value of a thing is determined by the constant interaction between buyer and seller. If I bought a plot of land for a thousand dollars because the guy who owned it didn't really want it then it would be mine.

If I then found gold on it then, according to emminent domain, a gold mining company can give me the thousand dollars I paid for the land and take all the gold. The real value of the property is a lot more than what "fair market value" says it should be. And since I'd probably settle for as little as 1% of what that particular gold mine makes, there's no excuse for the government coming in and interfering in the negotiation.

The only sensible measure of the value of a piece of property is the amount of money that its owner has to be offered to make him willing to give it up. If it's the house that they bought for $400,000 and just spent another $200,000 fixing up then they'd probably want a bit more than that to pick up and move somewhere else. But "fair market value" doesn't even take into account the cost of renovation. If you have to get the government to come in and force them to sell, then that's a pretty good clue that you're not really offering them the value of their property.

No, it doesn't.

It just says "This document should not be construed as enumerating all possible rights." Thus, it leaves what "other" rights there may be, and what uses fall under those that are enumerated..........up to interpretation!!!
WRONG. That was put in there because the founders believed in natural rights, today a libertarian position, and recognized that they have near infinite permutations. Ergo, trying to quantify and qualify them in the constitution would be just plain silly.

Souter is getting tossed out of his home? Good. Serves him right.

[qoute]

I'd want my Supreme Court Justices to take the attitude of "The legislature displacing citizens purely for the public purpose of higher tax income is evil and should be prohibited". Thier attitude seems to be the opposite. The interests of the money collectors are penultimate in thier minds.

While I'd like to see something similar myself, I have to admit that it's not really the place of the Supreme Court to decide what should and should not be prohibited. Only what is and is not, along with which prohibitions are prohibited already. Sadly, if you believe that the government has carte blanche authority to control commerce (which I don't) then it follows that it can ban marijuana use by those whose lives depend on it. That has nothing to do with whether or not it should be prohibited, only whether or not it can be.

Same deal with emminent domain. The Constitution says that the government can take your land, but doesn't really spell out under what circumstances. The problem here is not the Supreme Court, but corrupt local governments. Does your local media ever cover the race for governor or senator in year 2 or 6 with the same hooplah? Do you pay attention to it yourself?

Not a judgement on you personally, just a general comment. When I was working with a registration drive leading up to the last election and the deadline passed people would come up to the desk and ask if they could register to vote for president. Then we told them that the deadline had passed for this year, but if they registered then and there, they'd be able to vote in the following years election. Usually we were told "ah, that's alright, I'll do it next year." But occaisionally we got the more honest, "I don't care about other elections."

Those elections affect you in more direct ways than Federal elections usually do. They decide where to put the stop signs that keep people from crashing into you. They decide what your property taxes are going to be. And in this case, they decide whether or not a local business interest is allowed to steal your house.

The SC didn't say that this was OK. What they said was that they don't think there's actually a law against it.

all I can think of is AWESOME. I want to drive the bulldozer that demos his house. They should make it a contest for the drivers seat. Think it would get a huge amount of publicity.

Another thing. I want to build a amusement park on the site of the Supreme Court. The justices could work there if they want. Maybe in the house of mirrors. The ones that distort your image. Just like how they distort the constitution.

Another thing. I want to build a amusement park on the site of the Supreme Court. The justices could work there if they want. Maybe in the house of mirrors. The ones that distort your image. Just like how the distort the constitution.

I second the motion. Marrakech II, you should start a petition on this. I'm sure you'll get a hell of a lot of signatories. :D

Based on the actual decision, no, this won't fly.

The decision was pretty clear that one of the main reasons that the other use was allowed was that no specific private entity was slated to benefit from it. Thus, it does not allow for a specific hotel developer to say "I want that land for my hotel," and get it.

Now, if the local government decided independently that the land on which Souter resides would benefit the community as a string of hotels or stores, but did not already have specific hotels or stores in mind, it might fly.
Not that anyone will listen to you, but good job anyway.

Yes, but the decision also specifically noted that there was no real way to police that particular fact. Which means he's screwed anyway.

Incorrect.

O'Connor, in her dissent suggested that there was no way to police it. Of course, she was referring to much more veiled cases. This one would be blatantly obvious.

Me likey. I sincerely hope that they manage to pull it off, and maybe Justices will realize that they aren't gods of any sort. They are still humans, and have to put up with being knee deep in the excrement they threw around.

Me likey. I sincerely hope that they manage to pull it off, and maybe Justices will realize that they aren't gods of any sort. They are still humans, and have to put up with being knee deep in the excrement they threw around.
This is tantamount to arresting Bush's daughters under the Patriot Act for public drunkenness. I shouldn't need to point out why that's stupid.

This is tantamount to arresting Bush's daughters under the Patriot Act for public drunkenness. I shouldn't need to point out why that's stupid.
Does the Patriot Act have a clause in it for public drunkeness? If so, I can only say arrest away!
Anyways, punishing someone through their children is just low. What you mean to say is "This is tantamount to arresting Bush and the majority of both houses of Congress under the Patriot Act for, well, something . . . I can't think of any analogies that work."

Does the Patriot Act have a clause in it for public drunkeness? If so, I can only say arrest away!
No, that's the point.

No, that's the point.
:confused: <-- As my use of this smiley clearly indicates, I am now very confused.
OK then, the Supreme Court engages in another bout of nonConstitutional bench legislating. This legislation says that should a local government feel that taking (It isn't buying unless both sides enter the agreement willingly) your property away and giving it to another private individual will net the local government (note that the well-being of the of the original owner never seems to matter) more cash that said government can give you the heave hoe.
Now, a group wants to use this newly granted power to seize the private property of a SC justice. This somehow is the equivalent to arresting people on public drunkeness via a law that has nothing to do with public drunks.

No I still don't get it. I believe you have gone off your medication again, my sweet.

:confused: <-- As my use of this smiley clearly indicates, I am now very confused.
OK then, the Supreme Court engages in another bout of nonConstitutional bench legislating. This legislation says that should a local government feel that taking (It isn't buying unless both sides enter the agreement willingly) your property away and giving it to another private individual will net the local government (note that the well-being of the of the original owner never seems to matter) more cash that said government can give you the heave hoe.
Now, a group wants to use this newly granted power to seize the private property of a SC justice. This somehow is the equivalent to arresting people on public drunkeness via a law that has nothing to do with public drunks.

No I still don't get it. I believe you have gone off your medication again, my sweet.

You might have a point, if your description of the decision were anywhere near accurate. Of course, it isn't, so you don't.