Forum Post: Why did the supposedly "good" justices on the supreme court
Posted 11 years ago on May 22, 2012, 1:39 a.m. EST by CarlosFenito
(36)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
side with the 1% in the Kelo Vs New London decision?
EDIT: Matt wants me to look up the Kelo decision for him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_vs_New_London
Kelo allows the 1% to take land from poor people. It's Robin-hood in reverse.
You think letting corporations run advertisements and publish books is horrible? Tell that to someone who's house was just stolen.
After approving an integrated development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy, respondent city, through its development agent, purchased most of the property earmarked for the project from willing sellers, but initiated condemnation proceedings when petitioners, the owners of the rest of the property, refused to sell. Petitioners brought this state-court action claiming, inter alia, that the taking of their properties would violate the “public use” restriction in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The trial court granted a permanent restraining order prohibiting the taking of the some of the properties, but denying relief as to others. Relying on cases such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, and Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding all of the proposed takings.
Held: The city’s proposed disposition of petitioners’ property qualifies as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause. Pp. 6—20.
(a) Though the city could not take petitioners’ land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, see, e.g., Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 245, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted “to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals,” ibid. Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land–at least not in its entirety–to use by the general public, this “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.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158—164. Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power. Berman, 348 U.S. 26; Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229; Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986. Pp. 6—13.
(b) The city’s determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the plan’s comprehensive character, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of this Court’s review in such cases, it is appropriate here, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment. P. 13.
(c) Petitioners’ proposal that the Court adopt a new bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized. See, e.g., Berman, 348 U.S., at 24. Also rejected is petitioners’ argument that for takings of this kind the Court should require a “reasonable certainty” that the expected public benefits will actually accrue. Such a rule would represent an even greater departure from the Court’s precedent. E.g., Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 242. The disadvantages of a heightened form of review are especially pronounced in this type of case, where orderly implementation of a comprehensive plan requires all interested parties’ legal rights to be established before new construction can commence. The Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan. Berman, 348 U.S., at 26. Pp. 13—20.
268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed.
Get out of the way, poor people! Wal-Mart needs to make some money! Moooooo!
You realize your weak arguments could also rationalize seizing land with a trailer on it, to build a mansion, since the mansion owner would pay more to the city in taxes than the trailer owner. Moronic, and downright fascistic.
That's the case, Carlos. There are only 3 ways that a case makes it to the SC. What was the question and what was held?
Please note the following: The Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan.
Now, had the court second-guessed the wisdom of the means the city had selected, what is the flip side of this argument? They would have done what? Over reached their authority, nay?
I am not a fan (by any means) of eminent domain.
You did it! You actually engaged in intellectual debate without getting angry and resorting desperately to personal attacks! Look over at Shooz, he's crying happy tears for you.
The Supreme court's job is to enforce the constitution of the US. The constitution's fifth amendment prevents theft of private property without just compensation for public purpose. It is assumed that private property cannot be stolen from one private entity to another under any condition, for all people are created equal and no private entity is more entitled to a specific piece of property than another. And what sort of fascistic moron would give a poor person's land to a rich person? Looks like we have found out.
So, local and state governments are not permitted to break any of the rules set forth in the constitution. These are the ground rules, any thing not mentioned in the established amendments is left to the states (amendment 10). States are not allowed to seize guns or shut down news papers, so they are also not allowed to seize property. And likewise, since marijuana possession is not outlawed in the constitution, states are allowed to set their own rules concerning possession.
You did it! You actually posted something that was so worth it. I heart you. These are Supreme Court cases.
Look, you are trying to argue as if Kelo Vs New London set precedent. It did not. This is why it was ruled in this way.
Now, read Steven's Opinion. He is going to walk you through the facts of the case first or how it came to the Supreme Court. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZO.html
Eminent domain is, by and large, a state issue not really a federal issue. I don't like it. I don't agree with it.
Did the Supreme court follow precedent when they ruled that Blacks are equal to whites?
Why no, they didn't. They raped the precedent. Good thing, too.
Why do people revere "precedent" as though it is never ever to change? It's an embodiment of conservatism; preservation of the status quo.
It's called stare decisis (let the decision stand). This is important because those decisions have a procedure.
As I said before, this is by and large a state issue and, therefore, dealt with at the state level. You have to create laws or make those changes at the state level to prevent much of this.
The fifth amendment to the US constitution is NOT a state issue. I told you already.
And when are you for states rights all of a sudden?
Watch this, I'm going to mention the magic words "Health Care", which are not mentioned at all in the constitution, and you will reverse your states rights stance 180 degrees. Ready? Go!
HEALTH CARE!
I didn't say anything about state rights. I said it is a state issue because that is where the majority of the conflict is at. However, since you brought it up. It was incorporated in 1897 (rights extended to you as an individual). Now, when people all of a sudden started to pay attention to eminent domain with Kelo several states responded with new legislation that was to offer further protection.
For Chrissakes, when did you become an over emotional ninny?
Gosh, I've been away from this place too long.
You're agreeing with me and claiming to disagree at the same time. It's somewhat amusing.
The fifth amendment is being violated at the state level. But is a Federally protected right, per the US constitution. So the federal government's job is to protect it, the same way they need to protect it if a state government decides to shut down an OWS rally or seize weapons from people. All the rights that are not federally protected are reserved to the states, and the fifth amendment is not one of them. The Kelo decision was wrong.
Further, had the facts of the case shown this area to have been successful-it would not have made headlines. How do we know this? Unless, since I have been gone, you guys have suddenly taken a sudden interest in the plethora of eminent domain cases that are occurring nationwide as we speak-there is a great shortage of threads on the material. It was a reaffirmation. It did not set precedent.
Good point! Welcome back.
Thanks!!
Well, well, well. Hello u & wlcm bk stranger :-)
Hello, hello! How are you doing, shadz?
Hey you! Hope you are well. Nice to see you back.
I am doing great! Thanks. Good to read you!
I'm extremely underslept, tired & a little frazzled as I type this but you'll get me maybe if you see some very recently commented on threads. Hp u r ok 'GF' & with the OWS anniversary soon ; with the RNC & DNC not long ago + The 9/!! anniversary upon us too - all underwritten by the POTUS race & November election ... well, things are gonna / have got - a wee bit intense around these parts. Good to see you & here's hoping its not just a fleeting visit.
pax et lux 'GF' ...
We knew in advance it was going to get a little hot! I will be back and up and running on a permanent basis in a short time. It is good to see you up here.
more from Steven on this:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/1.pdf
He had thought they might of done so by restricting homes.
Great link. Thanks.
from 2011 for those reading along
Terrible decision and worrisome example of Gov attack on individual freedom. There was a big stink when it came down. In protest some folks even tried use the decision to take away Souter's home in NH.
http://articles.cnn.com/2006-01-21/justice/eminent.domain_1_eminent-domain-lost-liberty-hotel-justice-david-souter?_s=PM:LAW
I agree. Why is this not on the OWS agenda? A decisions allowing the seizure of poor people's houses by the rich makes Citizen's united look like child's play. Yet no one seems to care... WHY?? This even has bipartisan appeal, and a good chance for repeal if we push for it. Why does no one care?
Because for some making people equal is a higher priority than making them free.
So true... that's why some people idolize backward authoritarian states like Cuba, where everyone is dirt poor except the rulers. Wealth is relative, of course, so some people will be happy living in squalid conditions as long as no one else has more stuff than they do. It's pretty sad what some people will put up with in the name of envy...
These types of societies are very appealing, if you have given up hope of ever being above average, or if you want to rule people with an iron fist.
and now it's a beautifully over priced dump
Too bad they went ahead and stole those people's houses and bulldozed them, or else the people would have a place to live. Such a shame, poor people living in houses.
Its just not right that government and banks are standing in line to take away a families home, when they dont even want to live in it. The family is there for life, but banks want to foreclose after 2-3 months of miss payments, and government after 5 years of no tax payments. Shame on them, I say, a family in a home is much more important than a banks, falsified set of books or a state government's income level! Who can argue this point? Let them bring forth their strong reasoning!
need more information
edited.
It was from 2005 but here are some thoughts from the person who worte it.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/1.pdf
ah yes
emanate domain being used to hand over property to private hands
that's a bit like the government handing money to private issuance companies
Yes it is, it is the same as any time the government takes from someone to give to another, whether they are Goldman Sachs, GM, or insurance companies.
Scalia desented.
So did Rehnquist and Thomas.
O-bomb-ya has made no attempt at all for repeal of the decision. How can we say Citizen's United is a big deal when poor people's houses are being stolen?
Forgot Conners
never,
one wonders about the targeting of solving
the dilemma of the governments
unresponsiveness to the people
What I am trying to find out is, why is this not on the OWS agenda?
And why do people say we need to vote for O-bomb-ya because he will appoint "good" people to the supreme court, when the "good" people will continually let us down with decisions such as this?
I have to say you make a good argument and illustrate the pervasiveness of both political ideologies, but to say that poor people will definitely lose their homes in droves because of this precedent is a little alarmist of you. SCOTUS deals in hyperbole, what ifs and woopty do's as justification for their opinions. It is a little bit of a slippery slope argument to say this law is the beginning of mass seized property. besides It sound like the people who lost their property were highly compensated, which means to me they were given amounts of money that was greater than market price.
I never said it would happen in mass. That's like saying "Wrongful convictions don't matter because they don't happen all that often on the scope of things"
If it happens once, it may as well happen to all of us.
Who on earth cares how much they were compensated??? The value of my house is relative. I get to set the price unless it is going to be owned and controlled by the majority through democratic representation.
Are you defending this despicable act of 1% thuggishness?
Distraction!!! Citizens united further allows the 1% to steal our Govt. Name calling the Pres shows your immaturity!. Support the 99% Vote out pro norquist, pro citizens united politicians.!!
Bombing other countries show's the president's immaturity.
Your poor wittew feewings were hurt when I called your bomb dropping, NDAA signing hero a name? You should be glad I didn't call him worse. I'm sure, as a principled opponent of name calling, you have never called any politician a name. Ever. Good job!
And this is not a distraction, how can you say that book-publishing is more detrimental to the country than stealing houses from poor people? This should be on the OWS agenda alongside overturning Citizen's united.
My feelings ain't hurt. I've called pols (& others) names. but that childishness means we have nothing of substance to argue. Ain't no thing! Your position in fact is weaker than mine. It aint your fault. so you support citizens united. and your hate the president, and your makin excuses for the R's climate change denying. You are a republican! Good riddance. You work for the 1%. support OWS vote out anti gay pols
Whoa. Go take some antidepressants, okay? It may help you with your hatred.
When did I say I support citizen's united? I said it should be on the OWS agenda, along with overturning Kelo. "Overturn" sounds like support, only to a moron. Do you support the Kelo decision?
When did I make an excuse for climate denial? I said it wasn't part of the Republican platform.
Saying something is untrue is the same thing as defending what you are attacking? You sound like some unscientific loon, who naively sees the world in two parties.
So how does not letting the 1% steal the houses of the poor amount to "working for the 1%"?
Are you just paranoid, and everyone who does not fit in your pigeonhole is on the "other side"?
I feel sorry for you.
The kelo decision is a meaningless distraction. The problems we face are economic inequity. The 1% rigging the system for 30 years to create the largest redistribution of wealth from workers 99% to 1%. Claiming they would create jobs and instead, sent our jobs overseas, sheltered money and moved hq overseas to avoid taxes.! We must get their money out of politics if we are to regain the influence we are supposed to have. Support OWS. Vote out anti buffet rule politicians
Tell that to someone who's house has been stolen by a 1%er. I dare you.
it could
but there's a lot more control politics than campaign funding
http://occupywallst.org/forum/campaign-funding-miniscule-compared-to-government-/
Much more must be done. Mandatory voting for all! holidays for all election days (primaries as well) open primaries (to chip away at party control). No ads! Weekly debates during shortened campaign cycle, verifiable electronic voting with paper trail, I'm sure I could agree with other ideas. But certainly eliminating corp personhood/citizens united should be done right away.!
If confused undecideds cannot contemplate one thing that makes a difference between the two parties, think about a Roberts' ~ Citizens United ~ Court with even more sociopathic Cons ruling just for the 1% for 20-40 years into the future!
Register and Vote! Register and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!
What does Citizen's United have in common with Kelo?
They both favor the 1%. And they were decided by judges appointed by two different parties.
Until you realize that it is more important to stop the theft of poor people's houses by the rich, than it is to take away free speech rights of people, then you will forever live in your ignorant squalor. Baaa-aaaah! Do what the demagogues say! They bring me food!
WAKE UP!
Politics MOST CERTAINLY has EVERYTHING to do with "it" ~ the censorship of Free Speech especially that which conflicts with the dictatorial propaganda that comes from the 1%-owned, RepuliCon, RW, MSM, Fox (RepubliCon-TV) Lies, and Hate-Lie Talk Radio ~ UNDENIABLY and IRREFUTABLY!
Specifically, "conflicting Free Speech" that advocates a solution to the 1% tyranny of our Government, Media, Country and the 99% People: UNITY and VOTING!!!!
Sorry to spoil the party, but we are in a Class War! We, The People, are suffering the casualties, are losing the war, and fight each other instead of who our real enemy is. The real enemy is a group of would-be Kings (the "descendants" from the King of England's Loyalists and Royalists and hate democracy) in the 1%. We abandoned our democracy so they stole it and use it against us to make unimaginable wealth and power. That we might get smart and Unite against them, makes us mortal enemies. That's why we are the most ignorant, divided, non-voting, slave-waged, uninsured, population among modern democracies. All of which makes the "Kings" very happy and rich!!! And they will do whatever it takes to keep it that way!!!
That's the RW, RepubliCon, 1%, POLITICAL reason they sent out their cretinous Zombie Trolls to Censor posts on this Forum ~ and why we have to VOTE to kick and keep them out of our Government, local to DC!!
UNITE AND WIN!
Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!!
Register and Vote! Register and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They WROTE!!!!
Occupy the America's Alarm Clock, then Occupy the ELECTION!!!
End the censorship of free speech!
And overturn Kelo!