Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, Mar 15, 2006.
Do you agree?
I thought the right-wing response to Supreme Court decision was b.s. The people who apply eminent domain are elected officials, not the courts. Any restraint on eminent domain should be in the hands of state or even local government. There's no way a national law on a subject as complex as this can be good for economy. Each community faces different needs, and if one or two people don't want to move, they should not be able to block job creation and hospitals, for instance, for everyone else. The eminent domain issue was a good example of the right-wing using politics to attack the courts.
Do what the "Gang Bangers" do, get the Guns out, why aren't the "Civil Liberty Freedom Liberals" all over this?
Get the drums and the propellar hats out and march on Washington, hire Cindy Sheehan to lay down in the street in front of the White House, get Michale Moore to make a movie.
Liberals get bent all out of shape over tapping somebody's phone who wants to blow you up but are silent when the Govt wants to take your home away from you.
Build your Hospital somewhere else, do what Wal Mart does, "find a field"
I take it Harry you favor having activist courts, rather than voters, stop our elected representatives?
Weare NH just passed a law to push back against those libertarians who were bent on turning Justice Souters Home into a hotel. Is NH the only place where this eminent domain ruling is being confronted by grassroots activists?
When I was a young fool I always assumed after you worked hard, paid your bills and saved your money that the home and land you purchased and held the deed to was "YOURS", the Hospitals that charge $10,000 a day for a room should as I said, "GO FIND A FIELD", leave my property alone.
I find it hard to believe that some Liberals who are constantly whining and blubbering about Freedom, Civil Liberties, Kindness, Caring, Love and with all the concern they showed over Jenna Bush drinking beer would actually be comfortable with the Government seizing a citizens home and property.
It's crazy. Eminent domain should be used in the most extreme cases, like when a highway needs to be built, and even then they should really make sure they compensate the landowner at better than market value. Taking one's property by force of law to give to a private developer is a civil liberties issue for me.
BLess you my son.
Of all the socialist, partisan shyte I've seen from your keyboard, this is the worst. What a load of garbage, Patters. You're OK when the courts rule in favor of a complex issue like gay marriage, but not for the rights of property owners? Is there even such a thing in your mind? Property rights are off limits to the courts? Elected officials are held in check by executive and judicial branches and vice-versa. That's our system. You don't like it, find another constitution to live under, or are you making too much money here to toil under a socialist system you pretend to be so fond of.
Give your line of crap to the people in New London who are being forced out of their homes so a billionaire developer can get some sweet real estate with water views cheap. For your information, hospitals are no longer non-profit - they are owned by healthcare corporations who make billions. They can also be owned by HMO's, who also do well by their shareholders.
Emminent Domain is for PUBLIC projects like roads, airports, and courthouses. Not to line the pockets of billionaires. If they want to buy a place, they ask the owner if they want to sell, and offer a huge price if they want it bad enough. If they don't want to sell their property, they don't have to. Period.
Wistah, our democracy has repeatedly demonstrated that it is not effective at dealing with the civil rights of minorities. On the other hand, I believe it is effective at dealing with property rights.
The rare case of applying eminent domain to aid a private business I think can easily be prevented by elected representatives, but different communities face different issues and have different values. Obviously, there are cases where eminent domain (whether for private business or public reasons) has been abused, but that's a separate issue.
Like I said, on the issue of eminent domain, the SC cannot possibly hope to understand the different local values and issues. Surely, you can imagine situations where eminent domain is necessary.
The New London case was one of the anamolous cases where eminent domain was wrongly used, but if eminent domain entered into the equation of a poor community getting a hospital, I think a strong case could be made.
I agree with you, but I think a SC ruling could have prevented the use of eminent domain in legitimate cases. The issue should be a local one. A poor urban community might be desperate for a hospital, jobs, a supermarket. The government should do everything possible to avoid taking possession by eminent domain, but I believe there will always be some situations where eminent domain makes sense.
That statement needs a lot of explanation. I think they look effective at dealing with property rights to those who don't have property.
I don't know why you ever doubted I'm a Libertarian.
How many examples can you honestly think of where property rights have been trounced? I don't think there are that many at least in the last 20 or so years.
They're never high-profile cases because the affect a few homeowners at a time, but I read about eminent domain abuse all the time in the Globe. The Fenway/Kenmore controversy is the biggest and highest profile one that I know of, aside from the CT case that brought the Supreme Court ruling.
Going back a little further, remmber all the people who lost their homes to have I95 extended through the city, only to have the plan (known as The Master Plan) scuttled?
That is exactly why every True American should be OUTRAGED at the New London decision.
The Eminent Domain Law states that it is only applicable to take private property for use for the PUBLIC GOOD. It is a HUGE HUGE STRETCH to claim that the public good is now defined as the tax base of the local municipality.
And further that they can transfer private property from one private owner to another private owner for that purpose.
Eminent Domain was always previously used to transfer property from private into PUBLIC HANDS (i.e a municipal building - courthouse, park or townhall, firestation etc).
This property changes hands to build a MALL. That aint public hands.
THE WHOLE DEAL IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID and the weasels on the SUPREME sold us down the river.
They happen alll the time.
I picked a state and Googled the state and the words "eminent domain" and this among many others came up.
You should know that this subject demands vigilance because it's always the weak who get preyed upon. It's official voilence perpetrated on law-abiding citizens by the state. How do you think court-ordered evictions get enforced? At gunpoint, that's how.
I'm not denying eminent domain is a valid issue, but in most cases it's used to build schools, highways, and so on. In most cases, I think there are honest efforts to avoid using it and when it is used, communities try to affect the smallest number of people. I think the issue needs to be regulated at the local level; perhaps there needs to be a more effective appeals process and perhaps additional compensation should be given in some cases, but by and large it's not done with the intent of stealing property or hurting someone.
My only disagreement with you is whether a Supreme Court ruling is the best way to address the issue. I think, given the fact that eminent domain issues are so complex, the process should remain at the local level. A Supreme Court ruling could inadvertantly introduce all sorts of other problems, especially when you consider than eminent domain can be used for development, safety, commerce, health, and other issues. The New London case is one of the stranger ones, and those opposed to eminent domain obviously chose it because it's an extreme example.
C'monn, Patters, that's a cop out. The Supreme Court considers complex legal issues all the time, and their opinions can be hundreds of pages long explaining every facet of the issue they considered.
Look at Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, the most recent decision to keep abortion legal. They drew up a framework of what's allowed in the first trimester, the second trimester, and the third trimester. Pregnancy and abortion are certainly a complicated issues, and different communities have very different standards for what they would call acceptable. The Supreme Court rendered a complex decision that, for the most part (excluding the third trimester) placed individual rights out of the reach of the government's powers and I don't see why they couldn't do it with eminent domain.
What would you think if the government started systematically using eminent domain to punish minorities?
Pujo, I know a lot about the Supreme Court. The fact is that it considers practical matters of application as well as the Constitution. A friend of mine tried a case in front of the court about 10 years ago, which involved getting access to FBI files on the person my friend was representing. He had to prove that the court by granting this access would not open the floodgates creating an impossible situation for the FBI. (He won his case 9-0 by keeping the constitutional question very focused.)
Check out this link for an interesting article on eminent domain:
It's an interesting story, and a good article, but it doesn't back up what you said in this thread.
Separate names with a comma.