Hey basso you can't blame Clinton releasing some pressure under stress. As Dubya would tell you, "It's hard work. It's really hard".
I have not read all the opinions, but it seems like Thomas is the only one who knows what the constitution means. People clearly do not know their history. The founder of our country were living during the enclosure movement and knew what public use means. They would be appalled by this decision. Either these justices are ignorant of our constitution and history, or they are corrupt.
Here's a fun question to try to spur some disagreement here. Suppose, when building their new stadiums, the Astros/Rockets/Houston Sports Authority needed to envoke eminent domain (I know at least one was granted the authority, although I'm not sure they used it), would you have been in favor of it? It has also been used in other parts of the country, I believe, for this sports arenas. It seems to me the situations are fairly similar in that, while these teams do make the city happy, it really benefits the individual owners. The city gets some revival, but that's as a result of all the sub-businesses that come in. That's similar to what is happening in this case, with this general revival plan centered around Pzifer instead of the Houston Rockets - both private, for-profit entities.
well this should quell any dispersions that the ruling was some sort of handout to the conservative, capitalist agenda.
Nothing can be said in blank out fashion without the specifics. You have to foremost ask the affected property owners. The ultimate answer lies with them. If they don't feel like evacuating the site willingly, sorry to say I am against the idea, even it means for Rockects.
This is happening as we speak in New York. The Nets want to build a new stadium in downtown Brooklyn. Displacing several hundred residences and businesses. They have been fighting it for over a year now. In fact here's a story in today's Daily News. Home's up for grabs By DEBORAH KOLBEN and CORKY SIEMASZKO DAILY NEWS WRITERS Thursday, June 23rd, 2005 Local governments can seize homes or businesses and turn them over to private developers for projects - like malls or stadiums - if they improve the community, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday in a jaw-dropping decision. The court was sharply split in its 5-to-4 decision that pitted private property rights versus generating tax revenue. In a stinging dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the ruling punishes the poor and tramples on property rights. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms," she wrote. The ruling hit like a bombshell in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, where developer Bruce Ratner wants to take over 21 acres for a Nets basketball arena, and in Harlem, where Columbia University is eyeing 18 acres stretching up to 133rd St. between Broadway and the Hudson River. Brooklyn Councilwoman Letitia James, who represents the Prospect Park neighborhood, vowed to take the fight to Albany. "We urge the state Legislature to review the eminent domain statute in the state of New York because it's certainly being abused in the borough of Brooklyn," James said. Civil rights attorney Norman Siegel, who is representing property owners in Brooklyn and West Harlem, said his clients still hold the legal high ground. "The majority [on the court] didn't do anything except leave it to the state," he said. Michael Rikon, an expert on eminent domain, said Siegel may be mistaken. "Clearly, the decision by the Supreme Court gives the green light to go forward with condemnations for both those sites," he said. Ratner spokesman Joe DePlasco said "we have no comment on the Supreme Court decision." Daniel Goldstein, whose condo apartment on Pacific St. stands in the way of Ratner's development, insists he isn't budging. "I'm disappointed in the court's decision," Goldstein said. "But I live in my apartment, and that's what I'll continue to do." The case was brought by homeowners in New London, Conn., who are fighting that city's plan to flatten their neighborhood and build a five-star hotel, luxury condominiums and office buildings. Writing for the Supreme Court majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said "promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government." He was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined O'Connor in dissent. In a separate dissent, Thomas wrote: "No compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes." http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/321992p-275305c.html
You have to foremost ask the affected property owners. The ultimate answer lies with them. If they don't feel like evacuating the site willingly, sorry to say I am against the idea, even it means for Rockects. Oh I agree - there's no controversy if the owners all willing to move - then eminent domain doesn't have to be invoked. This would only be an issue if one or more owners wanted to stay put. And thanks for the answer - I'm just curious if the Pzifer aspect of it is part of the resentment. It "seems" much more private business than a sports team, but really isn't.
WOW. those of you to the left of center. this is what freaks many people out about those on the left. this, exactly. the phantom menace stuff. there are tons of things that freak me out about the right, as well.
IIRC, Kennedy was the replacement for Bork. So, if Bork had voted against New London, the decision would have gone 5-4 in the other direction.
Well have a great weekend everyone! We're off to my secluded 2 acres in the woods in the middle of nowhere! Hopefully it'll stay that way!
I really don't think that's the case. We're talking about the US SUpreme Court here. Also - it was the more liberal wing of the court that pushed this through.
The thing about this ruling is that its become a Rorshach test for both the left and the right since it seems like both those who self-identify with being left or right are against it and at the same time are trying to lob rhetorical bombs at each other with it. We see Basso holding up the NY Times support of it as an attack on the left while Wnes holding up the fact that this was done in support of a corporation as an attack on the right.
Sometimes court decisions are just the result of who has the better lawyers. Especially when the case is the interpretation of the framer's intent on questions they never specifically addressed. Oratory and persuasion is an art and a skill; even good cases can get out argued. That could be the case here. However,the check and balance on the courts is that the people can make new law to revise laws that are interpreted contrary to the popular will. That seems to already be happening. Democracy works! (sort of)
The left and the right can actually agree on some things. The vast majority of people think this is a bad ruling. What is telling is that the more liberal elements of the Supreme Court sided with the expanded governmental powers. And I think the anti-capitalist bomb was lobbed first in this thread. I would think that true conservatives would be against eminent domain in ANY circumstance.
Characterizing me as a champion of left wing is about as accurate as calling langal a right wing nutjob. BTW, if I were in a friendly fight with basso, having MadMax as a referee would be like having Mark Cuban presiding over the duel of JVG vs Avery Johnson.
