US Supreme Court has gone mad!

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by GePap
I think MtG. is also correct in saying they could still sue about the amount of compensation they will get.

Tweek: For the government to take your land, it has to do it by way of a lawsuit. One of the issues is how much "just compensation" should be. That's where this issue is decided.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm assuming the lawsuit is to satisfy procedural due process and the court basically just decides on just compensation issues. I was under the impression that the local government's taking of the land wasn't really reviewable during proceedings (public use issues decided in proceedings brought by private parties), or just rubber stamped.

edit: Nevermind, I found a website detailing California's proceedings (they follow what I said above).

http://www.eminentdomainlaw.net/procedures.html

[Ted Striker]

SCROTUM


This should have never happened.

The courts have been becoming a joke for some time now, and legislatures continue to push things into the courts that shouldn't be there in the first place.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Problem being the damage might already be done before said throwing out can actually take place. Further a rather upstanding local POL who might have never evidenced any indciations of susceptibility to corruption when suddenly and for the first time being swayed by the $$$ of a developer might actually change his tune. Point being these local POLS by and large have never been put in temptations way. Their track record is by and large blank.

And if they do anything bad, the people can be thrown out of office the next elections, contracts stopped, zonings changed, laws changes, lawsuits allowed, so forth and so on.

One would hope this ruling would get more Americans to look into their local politics, which in general affects your life more than the Feds.

[Ted Striker]

I read that the promise of jobs and tax revenue, that the megastores bring into the communities, actually sometimes never turns out the way they are sold. There is sometimes a net loss of jobs and taxes. I don't know if that's the case in rural and suburban areas, but I can certainly see that being the case in the urban cores.

[Mr. Harley]

Ted - it's a problem for rural and suburban areas too.

GePap, historically your statement is only partially correct. The ONLY Amendment that specifies "Congress" as being banned from an activity is indeed Amendment 1, and Amendment X preserves state and individual primacy (though not to Scalia, he only sees the state aspect and that is from a speech he made, not opinion).

GePap, I agree. If my viewpoint is correct, than there is no hope for American democracy retaining it's true democratic area, per se. I sadly stand by that interpretation, while simultaneously "praying to Divine Providence" that I am indeed wrong.

[Ted Striker]

Probably because small business owners live and work in the same area they own, right? So they are spending more of their money in the immediate community. Wheras the big chains are sending money back to corporate headquarters where the money is spent on:

...building another store in some other city


The vicious cycle continues.

[Mr. Harley]

I hate William Gibson's science fantasy. However, when it comes to predicting how society itself is going to change - damn, the man is good.

[Lefty Scaevola]

clever response to decision

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

[Kuciwalker]

Already posted.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I was under the impression that the local government's taking of the land wasn't really reviewable during proceedings (public use issues decided in proceedings brought by private parties), or just rubber stamped.

About the only case I remember when the "taking" power was at issue is when two entities wanted the same chunck of land -- one for a shopping mall, the other for a railroad switching yard. The case disappeared, so I guess it settled.

I doubt if they followed my suggestion for settlement, which was brilliant. I said: Have the railroad switching yard on the ground level and build the mall over it, with large glass domes so the shoppers can look down and watch the trains.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
I hate William Gibson's science fantasy. However, when it comes to predicting how society itself is going to change - damn, the man is good.

What else does he say?

[Mr. Harley]

Ted - if you haven't read him, he is the acknowledged founder of Cyberpunk. Actually he didn't really found it, there were other stories of that type already, but he took all the elements and put them together into well-written format. His first and most definitive work was Neuromancer, with a well written sort-of-sequal, Mona Lisa Overdrive. I will be your local library carries at least one of them, though you may have to ask them to get it on loan from another branch.

Cyberpunk from the societal standpoint posits that mega-corporations will end up ruling the world, and they will become extra- and supra-governmental entities, essentially writing the rules and dominating the world. Sort of like Blade Runner (the movie, not the book it was based on) meets Cybernetics, the Matrix, and New Age. However, he puts together all the details, including Contractors, trying to get into the Corps to so you have it set (think Japan), and a global marketplace with big corporate players from all over the world, including a heavy fixation with Asia/Japan.

My biggest issue with the Cyberpunk, which I call Cyberbunk genre, is the New Age bit. It seems, like with the Matrix, if you are killed while plugged in you die. It seems you consciousness is really out there on the net. My scenario is that Mr. Hero gets into trouble, the Black Ice (genre term for security) Cyber Samurai/Monster/Trap attacks him - and the neural and heart rate monitors unplug him, and he gets up fine, muttering "Damn it, they nailed me again." Obviously ALOT less dramatic tension. My only issue with this is that it is supposed to be Science Fiction, not Science Fantasy.

[Mr. Harley]

DP

[Odin]

This ruling stinks to high heaven. Eminent Domain is already abused as a way to increase city tax revenue at the expense of low income homeowners. The Supreme Court has effectively signed away our property rights to business, special intrests, and yuppies.