US Supreme Court has gone mad!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Totally different. A 'community redevelopment project' is different than giving the whole thing to one company.

[Joseph]

Re: US Supreme Court has gone mad!

Originally posted by The diplomat


The rest of the article here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html

I know it was a close vote, 5-4 but still. What is wrong with SCOTUS? Have they gone mad?

Suffice to say, I don't agree with this decision at all. Government, local or not, should not have that much power to displace people from their homes. It's not right.

I 110% agree.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'd rather that the government not have the unfettered authority to sieze my land for private commercial use because a developer thought it would be easier to get the government to force me out rather than try and deal with me.

Of course, what we're talking about here in the minimal protections offered by the Constitution.

There is nothing to prevent the states from passing laws which either prohibit or ****** this process... for example, a law saytring that when property is taken for private development, the current owner gets paid fair market value + 10%.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Which is why I pointed out the irony of Marxists predicting a bad thing only to use that bad thing as the basis for an ideology.

Except that they didn't. I realize you're just screwing around here, but there's a world of difference between the idea that the State, in certain circumstances, can take your property but must compensate you (eminent domain) and the idea that private property does not and/or should not exist (some versions of Marxism). This ruling actually has much more in common with libertarianism, which claims that private enterprise is the only source of public good.

[Bill3000]

Anyone think of Arthur Dent while reading this?

[Drake Tungsten]

I never thought I'd say this, but we need more judges like Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court...

[Mr. Harley]

Drake - and I NEVER thought I would say this - but after the Thomas's last erudite and eloquent dissent on the Medical Marijuana case - I am beginning to agree with :shudder: .

Now if we can combine Stevens views on the 9th amendment (he favors individual versus the states) and other individual rights, and Thomas on the constitution, we'd have the perfect SCOTUS justice. And no, Berzerker, you need not apply.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I never thought I'd say this, but we need more judges like Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court...

You mean sexual predators or just sexual harassers?

[Drake Tungsten]

Sexual harassers. If I wanted more sexual predators, I would've asked for more judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The SCOTUS ruled correctly, nothing I know of in the US Constitution prohibits the states from using eminent domain for whatever reason.

You agree that a government can seize people's private properties?

You are turning into a commie, with no respect for other people's rights.

[Berzerker]

UR - I changed my mind, but I wasn't talking about what I would support or wanted, only what I thought the Constitution allowed - they are not the same.

Rufus

Except that they didn't. I realize you're just screwing around here

but there's a world of difference between the idea that the State, in certain circumstances, can take your property but must compensate you (eminent domain) and the idea that private property does not and/or should not exist (some versions of Marxism).

What did I say? Commies made an ideology out of eminent domain. What is eminent domain? Its the state taking private property. Somebody got the brilliant idea of turning that into an ideology while sneering at businesses occasionally using eminent domain for their purposes. You dont see the irony?

This ruling actually has much more in common with libertarianism, which claims that private enterprise is the only source of public good.

It dont matter much to a libertarian if the guy "buying" their property is Donald Trump backed by Democrats and Republicans or Lenin backed by commies.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Chavez Ravine was taken in the late 50's, so that a private enterprise -- Dodger Stadium -- could be built.

Chavez Ravine was almost a textbook case of the abuse of eminent domain. They destroyed a vibrant thriving neighborhood in order to build a stadium that could have easily been built elsewhere. It certainly been a severe hardship upon the former resident of the neighborhood.

[aneeshm]

Re: Re: US Supreme Court has gone mad!

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
This is ****ing insane.

Truth .

Add me to the list .

[curtsibling]

Re: US Supreme Court has gone mad!

Originally posted by The diplomat


The rest of the article here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html

I know it was a close vote, 5-4 but still. What is wrong with SCOTUS? Have they gone mad?

Suffice to say, I don't agree with this decision at all. Government, local or not, should not have that much power to displace people from their homes. It's not right.

America voted for a new world order, and they got it.

Stop complaining and salute that flag!

[:) Smiley]

Well I suppose I'm on the other side.

Eminent domain is not simply taking people's property - owners are compensated. Don't know about elsewhere, but in San Francisco when this is done the developer is required to find replacement housing for residents nearby and rebuild housing and businesses on-site. Where it's not required, it's still often done as it provides guaranteed tenants.

Americans have this illogical obsession with land ownership.