You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #151: It's saying that the courts are not going to second guess [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-24-05 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #131
151. It's saying that the courts are not going to second guess
states and cities on matters pertaining to what constitutes public interest when the city met their burden with a detailed plan for economic development.

People are posting as though this property was stolen and the owners will be out on the street.

The state of Conn. can go FURTHER in situations such as this by LEGISLATING what should be done in such instances.

Furthermore, everyone who is against this when it creates many jobs can see the point of eminent domain for a park, a railroad or a hospital...but really? A park? When people need jobs? And what about hospitals? Are they not now privately owned? Can the public afford to go to the hospital if they don't have a job?

I think there needs to be a balance between local power and federal power. Were there not, then locals could still say "we won't rent to black folks" I think this decision respected that balance but I also DO THINK it sets precedent when a corporation claims that communities are screwing them out of a profit by not letting them put MTBE in their gas...it says communities know what is in their interest and that the court should not second guess that without good cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Why I *DON'T* disagree with the Supreme Court nothingshocksmeanymore  Jun-23-05 03:58 PM   #0 
  - You know, that's an excellent point you have there. I didn't think about  acmavm   Jun-23-05 04:00 PM   #1 
  - Thanks for making me feel a little better about this. n/t  bribri16   Jun-23-05 05:37 PM   #60 
  - You May Be Right  atreides1   Jun-23-05 04:00 PM   #2 
  - I believe they will get the fair market value for the home  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 04:05 PM   #9 
     - Paid over years  Tux   Jun-23-05 04:10 PM   #11 
     - What is your evidence of this? Here's a link that implies the contrary:  spooky3   Jun-24-05 10:58 AM   #157 
     - No, they get market price. Also, in most states you don't have to  Feles Mala   Jun-23-05 04:18 PM   #17 
     - I read further. The homes were condemned but there is nothing to stop  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 04:24 PM   #19 
     - That's not what my Dad got...........  converted_democrat   Jun-23-05 04:34 PM   #28 
     - no, you get what the government decides is "just compensation  unblock   Jun-24-05 03:36 PM   #187 
     - What's the "market value"  ProudDad   Jun-23-05 04:51 PM   #35 
     - Most of the rest of the neighborhood sold and did quite well  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 05:01 PM   #41 
        - self-deleted. n/t  girl gone mad   Jun-24-05 12:32 PM   #167 
        - Negotiate the selling price  CityDem   Jun-25-05 04:34 PM   #194 
     - Really? Read Begala's book about Bush and Arlington Stadium...  OneTwentyoNine   Jun-23-05 05:01 PM   #43 
     - and he won that lawsuit...so much for your argument  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 05:14 PM   #44 
        - And..so much for your argument about fair compensation...  OneTwentyoNine   Jun-23-05 06:22 PM   #77 
        - Um...lawsuits happen all the time. My point was he had a remedy and  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 06:31 PM   #79 
        - That family happened to..  girl gone mad   Jun-24-05 12:33 PM   #168 
     - I Believe!  smb   Jun-24-05 09:27 AM   #130 
     - I think Nina Totenberg on NPR said they were offered $1.6 million  spooky3   Jun-24-05 10:53 AM   #153 
  - Ah, you're on old-style Republican  wtmusic   Jun-23-05 04:02 PM   #3 
  - This ruling gives new meaning to "All politics is local."  barbaraann   Jun-23-05 04:02 PM   #4 
  - Bless your heart  OldLeftieLawyer   Jun-23-05 04:02 PM   #5 
  - I've had similar thoughts.  sadiesworld   Jun-23-05 05:26 PM   #51 
     - Here's the opinion  OldLeftieLawyer   Jun-23-05 05:35 PM   #56 
        - Thanks for the link.  sadiesworld   Jun-23-05 05:44 PM   #63 
        - Yeah, I was appalled, too  Synnical   Jun-23-05 06:23 PM   #78 
  - I fully concur.  jmaier   Jun-23-05 04:02 PM   #6 
  - I agree.  Kraklen   Jun-23-05 04:03 PM   #7 
  - It's always been a touch subject  zipplewrath   Jun-23-05 04:04 PM   #8 
  - Sports stadiums are crap!!!  ProudDad   Jun-23-05 04:55 PM   #37 
  - My one and only comment on this very long argument.  SteppingRazor   Jun-23-05 04:07 PM   #10 
  - My comment on that-  Lexingtonian   Jun-23-05 04:14 PM   #14 
  - Life, health, liberty and possessions - Locke  Zensea   Jun-23-05 04:45 PM   #32 
  - I don't like that argument. Pollution should be regulable on grounds....  eallen   Jun-23-05 04:11 PM   #12 
  - How many "polluters" have been removed by Eminent Domain?  ProudDad   Jun-23-05 04:56 PM   #39 
     - The courts HAVE ruled that some regulatory laws are takings  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 05:15 PM   #45 
  - The problem is  Nederland   Jun-23-05 04:13 PM   #13 
  - You can get another house with the money you are paid  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 04:25 PM   #20 
     - What if you don't want one?  SteppingRazor   Jun-23-05 04:29 PM   #23 
        - Nobody owns anything in perpetuity and that has ALWAYS been the law  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 04:32 PM   #27 
           - Since When?  Nederland   Jun-23-05 05:16 PM   #46 
           - The rule against perpetuities goes back to English common law and is  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 05:34 PM   #55 
              - Sorry NSM  Nederland   Jun-24-05 10:43 AM   #150 
           - bullshit buddy......  OneTwentyoNine   Jun-23-05 05:26 PM   #52 
           - What law? n/t  Phoebe Loosinhouse   Jun-23-05 05:29 PM   #53 
           - Umm, this is a capitalistic society, right?  high density   Jun-23-05 10:47 PM   #109 
           - Wrong  guardian   Jun-24-05 10:31 AM   #143 
  - And I disagree with your not disagreeing  Phoebe Loosinhouse   Jun-23-05 04:15 PM   #15 
  - Jobs are a public interest..no?  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 04:26 PM   #21 
  - "Jobs" is the Trojan Horse. Wake up and smell the Starbucks!!  Phoebe Loosinhouse   Jun-23-05 05:24 PM   #50 
     - consider these two cases re: public versus private distinctions  welshTerrier2   Jun-23-05 05:36 PM   #59 
        - Okey-dokey, here's my answer  Phoebe Loosinhouse   Jun-23-05 05:57 PM   #69 
        - well, OK but ...  welshTerrier2   Jun-23-05 06:18 PM   #76 
           - You got it exactly right: I accept the idea of eminent domain for  Phoebe Loosinhouse   Jun-23-05 06:55 PM   #80 
              - In this case the public good is legitimately being served  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-24-05 12:47 AM   #120 
                 - In this case, it appears that the public good is being served BUT  Phoebe Loosinhouse   Jun-24-05 07:18 AM   #128 
                    - It's no less consistent with the 5th amendment than using eminent  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-24-05 10:42 AM   #147 
        - The Difference Is As Follows  smb   Jun-24-05 09:55 AM   #138 
  - Yep  smb   Jun-24-05 09:32 AM   #132 
  - Yea the assholes are not the ones getting their home ripped out from them  nolabels   Jun-23-05 04:16 PM   #16 
  - Actually in this case if you read his decision he left LOTS for local  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 04:29 PM   #22 
     - Monetary compensation is all well and good but some people.........  nolabels   Jun-24-05 03:05 AM   #127 
  - I think you're all trying to put lipstick on a pig.  zanne   Jun-23-05 04:18 PM   #18 
  - Nope. I'm trying to point out who the real pig is  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 04:29 PM   #25 
  - i totally agree ...  welshTerrier2   Jun-23-05 04:29 PM   #24 
  - I agree with that technical interpretation of the ruling, but...  TreasonousBastard   Jun-23-05 04:31 PM   #26 
  - Oh I completely agree with your first statement  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 04:35 PM   #29 
  - OK, I am going to have to spend more time reading the decision...  TreasonousBastard   Jun-23-05 04:40 PM   #30 
  - BUT IT'S FOR  ProudDad   Jun-23-05 08:16 PM   #84 
     - That is not accurate.  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 11:36 PM   #112 
        - Sorry  smb   Jun-24-05 09:38 AM   #133 
  - Many small ponds are run by a few big fish  Phoebe Loosinhouse   Jun-23-05 04:42 PM   #31 
  - I'm sorry but  ProudDad   Jun-23-05 04:50 PM   #33 
  - Again read the decision. This area has had problems providing jobs  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 04:52 PM   #36 
     - The whole damn country  ProudDad   Jun-23-05 04:59 PM   #40 
     - You keep talking like every neighborhood will be like this one...  OneTwentyoNine   Jun-23-05 05:23 PM   #49 
        - Actually you can pass that law locally with this decision  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 05:32 PM   #54 
        - You don't need to walk all the way though a chicken coop...  OneTwentyoNine   Jun-23-05 06:07 PM   #73 
           - The case does not provide for any precedent that was not there before  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 06:13 PM   #75 
              - You're WRONG  ProudDad   Jun-23-05 08:19 PM   #85 
              - Exactly! n/t  Phoebe Loosinhouse   Jun-23-05 08:32 PM   #91 
              - Nope. In every section, Stevens carefully referenced the prior decision  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 10:29 PM   #106 
              - Local BIG money elects local governments  ProudDad   Jun-23-05 08:23 PM   #87 
        - In California, communities are passing laws against allowing Wal Mart  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-24-05 12:00 AM   #114 
  - I love you, NSMA  ComerPerro   Jun-23-05 04:50 PM   #34 
  - "public use" has long been interpreted to mean "public interest"  welshTerrier2   Jun-23-05 04:55 PM   #38 
  - And the public interest is served by another Wal-Mart??  ProudDad   Jun-23-05 05:01 PM   #42 
     - well, meeting the "test" is another matter ...  welshTerrier2   Jun-23-05 05:17 PM   #47 
        - Uh, your case one is what this ruling was about  ProudDad   Jun-23-05 08:20 PM   #86 
  - Why I DO disagree  DuaneBidoux   Jun-23-05 05:19 PM   #48 
  - Again, reread the decision  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 05:41 PM   #61 
  - Just because it's been easy to exploit the poor in the past  ProudDad   Jun-23-05 08:24 PM   #88 
  - So What?  smb   Jun-24-05 09:43 AM   #134 
  - My point is simply that with it easier to do it through private than  DuaneBidoux   Jun-24-05 03:13 PM   #183 
  - So prove it NMSA  mongo   Jun-25-05 03:47 PM   #190 
  - The "Public Good"...  hughee99   Jun-24-05 02:01 PM   #176 
  - I completely agree with you  pmbryant   Jun-23-05 05:35 PM   #57 
  - Thanks Peter..I've said the same thing numerous times today  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 05:43 PM   #62 
  - The REASON that poor people can have their homes seized  mongo   Jun-25-05 04:07 PM   #192 
  - I keep explaining it; Mongo keeps explaining it -- When Will It Sink In?  smb   Jun-28-05 09:55 AM   #195 
  - I was born & raised in New London, so this hits home to me.  Sparkly   Jun-23-05 05:36 PM   #58 
  - And I can definitely see your point..but consider this Sparkly  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 05:46 PM   #64 
  - I see that point too, but...  Sparkly   Jun-23-05 05:56 PM   #68 
  - The real NIMBY going on is that the middle class saw no problem  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 06:01 PM   #71 
  - BLIGHT? Bogus!!!  ProudDad   Jun-23-05 08:27 PM   #89 
     - And where were you when they did that? They didn't need this ruling to do  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 10:04 PM   #101 
  - with the sub base closing this is even more critical  NewYorkerfromMass   Jun-23-05 05:50 PM   #65 
     - thanks for the back-up in explaining this  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 05:56 PM   #67 
     - Okay, I don't get that part.  Sparkly   Jun-23-05 05:58 PM   #70 
        - It only limits Feds by reaffirming a prior case that said Feds didn't know  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 06:10 PM   #74 
           - That Doesn't Require Eminent Domain  smb   Jun-24-05 09:46 AM   #135 
           - And here is the crux of that biscuit  mongo   Jun-25-05 04:20 PM   #193 
  - So ... states rights won out?  Eastside Blue   Jun-23-05 05:55 PM   #66 
  - On medical marijuana they cited the commerce clause rightfully so  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 06:04 PM   #72 
     - The law is an ASS  ProudDad   Jun-23-05 08:32 PM   #90 
     - Really , he said "The law is a ass"  Phoebe Loosinhouse   Jun-23-05 08:40 PM   #95 
        - Thanks  ProudDad   Jun-24-05 12:40 AM   #118 
     - There is no cmmerce in a sick woman  Eric J in MN   Jun-23-05 08:38 PM   #94 
     - It would help to have some legal training before you make such comments  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 10:10 PM   #102 
        - A workplace is commerce.  Eric J in MN   Jun-23-05 10:42 PM   #108 
           - Sorry my pet parrot is busy so I will respond to this with a new idea.  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 11:51 PM   #113 
              - There is a difference  Eric J in MN   Jun-24-05 01:27 AM   #124 
     - Congress has the power to regulate INTERSTATE commerce  Hippo_Tron   Jun-23-05 10:54 PM   #110 
        - And that is not the issue and it is late and I am lazy  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-24-05 12:09 AM   #115 
  - Why am I unsurprised?  Walt Starr   Jun-23-05 06:56 PM   #81 
  - But the "taking" was legal..I thought all your arguments rested  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 07:35 PM   #82 
     - This decision was bad law. It borders on what the Stalinists did in  Walt Starr   Jun-23-05 07:56 PM   #83 
     - Bullshit. This decision was based on prior precedent.  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 09:57 PM   #99 
     - Only legal because 5 pro-capitalist  ProudDad   Jun-23-05 08:35 PM   #92 
  - This ruling doesn't stop federal laws passed by Congress for over-riding  Eric J in MN   Jun-23-05 08:35 PM   #93 
  - Great reply on your blog  ProudDad   Jun-23-05 08:44 PM   #96 
  - Thank you (nt)  Eric J in MN   Jun-23-05 08:47 PM   #97 
  - Big problem with your essay here  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 10:15 PM   #103 
     - Answer  smb   Jun-24-05 09:49 AM   #136 
  - More from the dissent opinion which I totally concur with  Phoebe Loosinhouse   Jun-23-05 09:03 PM   #98 
  - Funny..two judges who repeatedly rule against labor right invoking  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 10:03 PM   #100 
     - That's what I thought  ismnotwasm   Jun-23-05 10:17 PM   #104 
        - It distinguishes public use in a different manner than in the past  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 10:22 PM   #105 
           - Ok, I think I get it  ismnotwasm   Jun-23-05 10:39 PM   #107 
              - No. If someone wants you to get out of your house so they could  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-23-05 11:34 PM   #111 
                 - How Naive ARE You?  smb   Jun-24-05 09:51 AM   #137 
                    - I am not naive ..I can read..I read the decision  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-24-05 11:09 AM   #160 
  - "Local" government in our western state already thinks it's groovy  Sugarbleus   Jun-24-05 12:23 AM   #116 
  - And that was done under the law as it stood prior to the USSC  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-24-05 12:39 AM   #117 
     - I love your plan  ProudDad   Jun-24-05 12:44 AM   #119 
     - And this community will be better off with hundreds of jobs  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-24-05 12:49 AM   #121 
     - Haven't been down on K street in awhile but last I was in Sacto  Sugarbleus   Jun-24-05 01:29 AM   #125 
  - Local governments are easily bribed and easily impressed--please read!  Nikki Stone 1   Jun-24-05 12:52 AM   #122 
  - Anyone can be bribed. The court expanded PUBLIC USE to  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-24-05 01:42 AM   #126 
  - Interesting way of looking at it  Tinoire   Jun-24-05 12:55 AM   #123 
  - Nonsense  smb   Jun-24-05 09:26 AM   #129 
  - And if their property were taken without compensation, you'd have a point  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-24-05 10:43 AM   #149 
     - Who decides---compensation?  TnDem   Jun-24-05 07:01 PM   #188 
  - Thank you, for some reason this whole case perplexed me  LynneSin   Jun-24-05 09:30 AM   #131 
  - It's saying that the courts are not going to second guess  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-24-05 10:50 AM   #151 
  - AGREE - I still say this is a sucker punch from the right  Cell Whitman   Jun-24-05 10:13 AM   #139 
  - This is BAD and YOU should be upset.  guardian   Jun-24-05 10:19 AM   #140 
  - So you don't believe in Eminent Domain ..period?  Cell Whitman   Jun-24-05 10:32 AM   #144 
  - Stop with the red herring argument  guardian   Jun-24-05 10:36 AM   #145 
     - I asked you a question  Cell Whitman   Jun-24-05 10:41 AM   #146 
        - And I asked you a question too  guardian   Jun-24-05 10:51 AM   #152 
           - I answered it by asking you to read my post above yours.  Cell Whitman   Jun-24-05 11:05 AM   #159 
  - Yes I know there are horror stories..and the good people of  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-24-05 10:53 AM   #154 
  - Your New Soulmates  smb   Jun-24-05 01:22 PM   #173 
     - Your comments are complete non - sequiturs to my comments  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-24-05 01:32 PM   #174 
  - They were offered far more than pennies (link inside).  spooky3   Jun-24-05 11:03 AM   #158 
  - Sorry, but I don't buy your arguement.  MadHound   Jun-24-05 10:30 AM   #141 
  - I am not blindly praising bad policy  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-24-05 10:56 AM   #155 
     - OK ,but there are a few other factors to take into consideration  MadHound   Jun-24-05 11:34 AM   #165 
  - I posted this elsewhere, but I'm re-posting it here because this should be  Czolgosz   Jun-24-05 10:30 AM   #142 
  - We need to hop on this:  NewYorkerfromMass   Jun-24-05 10:42 AM   #148 
  - And they sued him and won  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-24-05 10:57 AM   #156 
     - But did Bush and the Rangers ever re-pay the City of Arlington for  Czolgosz   Jun-24-05 11:10 AM   #161 
        - If not I would assume there is a lien on the property  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-24-05 11:11 AM   #162 
  - I live in a rural area  Tom Rinaldo   Jun-24-05 11:22 AM   #163 
  - I agree  guardian   Jun-24-05 11:33 AM   #164 
  - That's happening where I live in the booming Sun Belt. And it's  KoKo01   Jun-24-05 03:02 PM   #181 
  - What the media isn't telling you  lwfern   Jun-24-05 11:43 AM   #166 
  - Exactly. "Fair market value" is what the government feels like paying, and  Ron Mexico   Jun-24-05 01:09 PM   #172 
  - On point number 1:  smartvoter   Jun-24-05 02:33 PM   #177 
  - While I can't argue all those specific facts, the courts left it open  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-24-05 02:50 PM   #179 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Jun-24-05 02:59 PM   #180 
        - Please..you were indeed fearmongering and your post to me later on  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-24-05 03:05 PM   #182 
           - Your definition of fearmongering is comical.  smartvoter   Jun-24-05 03:18 PM   #185 
  - easier for citizens AND CORPORATIONS to change local governments  unblock   Jun-24-05 12:53 PM   #169 
  - Clean elections are easier to legislate on the local level  nothingshocksmeanymore   Jun-24-05 01:05 PM   #170 
  - This is exactly my view. nt  smartvoter   Jun-24-05 02:50 PM   #178 
  - You're wrong - people are being fucked by way of "fair" compensation.  Ron Mexico   Jun-24-05 01:07 PM   #171 
  - as i said, no such thing as home ownership anymore.  unblock   Jun-24-05 03:30 PM   #186 
  - Thanks NSMA.....  Old and In the Way   Jun-24-05 01:44 PM   #175 
  - Hear, hear  HEIL PRESIDENT GOD   Jun-24-05 03:18 PM   #184 
  - So we're to believe Pfizer...  greblc   Jun-24-05 08:49 PM   #189 
  - Yeah like when some local goverments  Wabbajack   Jun-25-05 04:04 PM   #191 
     - That's Why "Deference"  smb   Jun-30-05 08:22 AM   #196 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC