God I HATE it when this happens....I agree with George Will.

[TalkingDog]

It's only happened twice before, honestly....once he had an article on how those inside the beltway were out of touch with...well, everything and that time during the inaugural parade when he said, "It looks like a banana republic." on the air.

Crap...I hate it when that happens.

snip:
Most conservatives hoped that, in the most important case the court would decide this term, judicial activism would put a leash on popularly elected local governments and would pull courts more deeply into American governance in order to protect the rights of individuals. On Thursday, conservatives were disappointed.

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=56726

Then read this:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3239024

snip:
With Thursday's Supreme Court decision, Freeport officials instructed attorneys to begin preparing legal documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for construction of an $8 million private boat marina.

[Somawas]

1. Will called the Court's decision a "triumph of Liberalism"

which I would not agree with at all. But he did say that folks of modest means are likely on the short end of the stick and wealth and power the likely beneficiaries of the decision. Which is true.

Don't be too upset that you agreed with George Will on something. As we say in this part of the South, evan a blind hog will find a few acorns.

[PsN2Wind]

2. "Triumph of liberalism?"

Didn't Little George while in the sweetheart deal with the Texas Rangers participate in getting property condemned to build their new ballpark?

[Somawas]

4. Yes, they did.

Let's face it, Republicans got a big win on this one, whether they want to admit it or not. If you're a wealthy Repug developer, ball team owner, Wal-Mart, etc, you get the city to condemn the land for you so that no uppity little property owners can screw you on the price. Then you brag about all the good you're doing for the community by getting rid of blocks upon blocks of crackheads, welfare cheats, etc.

And is the sheeple don't like it-well it's all the fault of those nasty liberals on the Supreme Court-darn activist judges.

[Eloriel]

6. More like triumph of fascism n/t

[Demeter]

3. Even Worse, I Agree With Scalia and Thomas!

the justices on the losing side of the argument. It's just nuts that anybody could say that your property will be given to Mr. Bigbucks because you don't create a big enough splash in the local economy (meanwhile, Bigbucks is fishing for subsidies, tax rebates, contract concessions, and every other form of "other people's money" to finance his swindle).

[Broken_Hero]

5. Yeah, no doubt...

My house doesn't make any money, so is my house at risk for beingg taken over for economic growth? LIke i posted the other day, they will have to take the smoking shotgun, and .41 from my damn hands...to get my house.

[K-W]

7. Why is DU conservative on this issue?

DU is suddenly small government crazy because everyone is irrationally afraid of having to move?

What the states are doing is wrong, but not unconstitutional.

[evilkumquat]

8. No...

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people's property rights by saying:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

PUBLIC USE are roads, bridges, governmental buildings- things owned by the taxpayers.

Giant, multi-million-dollar condo projects or, God forbid, sports stadiums, are PRIVATELY owned (or are usually only 'partially' owned by the taxpayers via loans or other tax-funded relief).

The Supreme Court REALLY screwed up this time.

I feel so... dirty... siding with that Sky Pilot Scalia.

Evil Kumquat

[K-W]

9. That is simply a misinterpretation of the language.

Public use does not mean that the property must stay in the commons, that is going above and beyond what is written. The supreme court cant just overturn laws that are bad it can only decide on matters of legality, stop blaiming liberal judges for upholding the constitutionality of the law and blame the jerks who wrote the law.

[evilkumquat]

14. Uh...

The Constitution is a living, breathing document (hence all the Amendments), and it does need some reinterpretations from time to time (especially in cases of gross racist or sexist instances- see Amendments 13, 14, 15 and 19).

But the difference between making sure everyone gets the right to vote regardless of race or sex is a hell of a lot different than changing the meaning of public to private ownership.

After this decision was announced, the business suits of every Wal-Mart* executive probably glow so brightly under Luminol that even Bill Gate's man-boobs would get a tan from them. Wal-Mart will see this as the solution to expanding their stores in every larger city on the East coast which, up to now was saved from their Machiavellian grip due to lack of expansion space.

Evil Kumquat
_________________________________

*Which in terms of evil falls roughly between the Bush Administration and S.P.E.C.T.E.R.

[yurbud]

10. no one really gives a shit about federalism vs. states rights...

it is really a matter of which will do what you want on your issue.

The South used BOTH federalism AND states rights to defend slavery, first with the Fugitive Slave Act, then with secession.

Same thing with the Bushies. When the court decisions didn't go their way in the 2000 election, they wanted federal (Supreme Court) intervention.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[yurbud]

11. this is really average joe vs. investor class

If the legislature and courts don't side with individual property owners when they are up against corporate interests who have the money to buy political influence, where do they turn? Why sink so much into your house if someone can take it from you when you have done nothing wrong?

That imminent domain, is painful but necessary for freeways and the like, but to benefit private businesses? No.


If the democrats had the balls to play this as a class warfare issue, they could make some hay on this, and do some good.


Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[TalkingDog]

13. I agree completely. n/t

[paulk]

12. why?

because many on DU aren't really liberals - they're reactionaries.

Much of DU exists in that murky area where the far left and far right meet.

That so many are siding with the far right on this issue...

says something

[bklyncowgirl]

15. This is a gift to corporations.

This is one of those issues that left wing populists and right wing populists agree on. Odd to see George Will on this side of this but he's a small government conservative and besides, the right is going to beat this drum right through to 2006 even if secretly they like the idea of taking grandmas house to build a mall.

No one wants their house taken from them--especially for a freakin' Walmart--or as in some towns in my area of the Jersey Shore--a little gifty-poo from local politicians to developers of luxury beachfront townhouses. Case closed, End of story.

Liberals want to take your house.

Once again our leaders are out of step with the average American.