Roberts: Congress Can Trump Court Decision

[Witchy_Dem]

WASHINGTON - Chief Justice nominee John Roberts said Wednesday that Congress has the right to counter Supreme Court rulings including a divisive decision giving cities broad power to seize and raze people's homes for private development.

"This body and legislative bodies in the states are protectors of the people's rights," Roberts said on the third day of his confirmation hearings to be the nation's 17th chief justice.

Republicans and many Democrats reacted angrily earlier this year when a sharply divided Supreme Court said cities can take and bulldoze people's homes in favor of shopping malls or other private development to generate tax revenue. The decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as favoring rich corporations, and Republican lawmakers have criticized it as infringing on states' rights.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/roberts;_ylt=AuyzAvKNJGoar2EYQOLwd01uCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[still_one]

1. what are the odds

[TheFriar]

2. Roberts is evil

and anyone Bush nominates or appoints for anything will be evil. They are all evil and I hate them.

[saigon68]

8. Scary Roberts and The Half-Wit

[K-W]

3. Dont believe the Republican hype about eminant domain

Thier talking point about states rights is blatently bogus. The Supreme Court ruling was a refusal by the federal court to limit the reach of eminant domain, which means it is up to the states and localities to pass thier own laws governing what is and is not an acceptable use. It was a victory for states rights.

And it is misleading to only refer to Sandra Day O'Conner, whos argument is compelling but legally specious, when that was not the reason the crazy cons on the court opposed the decision.

The reason the crazy cons, and the republican party oppose that decision is that they want the ability of states to regulate property limited. Not out of any compassion for people victimized by economic power.

[MostlyLurks]

4. Amen K-W. The ruling has been completely misunderstood. n/t

[smb]

6. Wrong

The Supreme Court ruling was a refusal by the Court to obey the plain language of the United States Constitution -- which allows takings only for "public USE" (i.e. government-run infrastructure, not private profit).

[jsamuel]

9. what about public profit through taxing private profit?

[K-W]

10. Even if your post is correct, which it isnt, it doesnt prove mine wrong.

So, I'm not sure where the 'wrong' came from.

I realize that thier ruling doesnt agree with your interpretation of the constitution. But your interpretation is based on wishful thinking, not any rational understanding of the language in the document.

Public use means use by the public. The public government taking the land and giving it to someone else is a public use, it just isnt a public use you like.

Hey, I wouldnt mind it if the constition said what you think it says. But it simply doesnt.

[smb]

12. Nonsense

The public government taking the land and giving it to someone else is a public use

WTF?? Obviously, that is not "public use" -- that is "private use" by whoever paid Boss Hogg a big enough bribe (er, "contribution") to obtain the gift.

[K-W]

13. You are reading way too much into 'public use'.

All the state must demonstrate to meet the public use standard is that the use is intended to serve the public. It does not require that the land in question remain in the commons forever. It doesnt even require that the use actually serve the public, only that the state earnestly believes that it will.

The term public use is not enough to support your interpretation.

It is the role of legislators to determine what is and is not a public use, not the courts.

[happyslug]

17. Who Decides what is a "Public Use"?

What the Court ruled was the Political entity that decides what is "Public Use" is the Public Entity DOING THE CONDEMNATION i.e. the Local Government Council, County Council or State Legislature. This follows the rulings of the US Supreme Court in previous condemnation cases AND as to the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution (Which since the late 1930s The Supreme Court has says it is COngress NOT the COurt that determines what is "Interstate Commerce").

The Supreme Court decided (Rightly in my mind) that the best group to decide what is "Public Use" is the people subject to election by the Public NOT the unelected life time appointed members of the Federal Court System. Now if a state wants to impose restrictions on who determined what is "Public Use", this decision does NOT prevent the state and the state court system to adopt such rules, but do NOT go to the Federal Court System for Protection, for the Federal Constitution defers such decisions to your local and State Government.

[Demeter]

5. And Here I Thought It Was THE COURTS That Protect Rights!

Silly me! Let's see, the legislature makes laws and declares war, the Executive enforces laws, and the Supreme Court decides if the laws passed are in the direction and spirit of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights which talks about search and seizure.

Yup. That's what I thought. THis man is incompetent!

[jsamuel]

7. He is right in this ruling because of the way they ruled it

State legislatures have the right to make laws on eminent domain, but the Supreme Court doesn't. That is why the court ruled that last time. The outcome SUCKED, but it was technically the right decision. The problem is that state legislatures didn't all do that after the ruling, which then allows corporations to take everything over.

[MissMarple]

11. It's my understanding that the legislatures and Congress have abdicated

to the courts difficult or controversial issues they do not want to deal with for quite some time. Their neglect has pushed many of these issues into the courts where they do not belong. Judges are often hard put to find ways to address these cases, which pretty much contorts state and national laws to fit issues they were never meant to address.

I think Roberts has a valid point.

[moobu2]

15. You're correct

In essence, the court left the issue up to the states. Conservitives and people who didnt understand the outcome, spread the missinformation that Government could sieze anyones private land and give it to other private companies etc...Nonsense.


States should have reacted by examining their own laws and beefed them up if they felt it necessary. That's all.

[MostlyLurks]

16. And that's a ripe area for Democratic candidates.

I have an "in" with a candidate for state representative in OH and once I had this decision explained to me by someone smarter, I suggested to her that a significant part of her platform ought to be reformation of "eminent domain" and "public use" laws in here, because everybody I knew - liberal and con - was up in arms about this decision.

Even though it was decided correctly, based on how it was explained to me, it can be used as a voting issue in '06 and Dem candidates are crazy if they don't see it.

Mostly

[mmonk]

14. Technically, he's right

except where Congress acts against the constitution.

[livefrom]

19. Correct

Congress can pass a new law or revise an existing law in response to a S. Ct. decision at any time as long as it is constitutional and it is not concerning an area of law reserved for the states (which are not many any more).

[depakid]

21. I think you may need to brush up on your Con law

Kelo's holding, i.e. "The city’s proposed disposition of petitioners’ property qualifies as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause" is purely a matter for the Court.

Short of passing a Constitutional Amendment and putting it to the states, Congress has no power whatsoever to change the Court's interpretation.

To do so would be a violation of Article. VI.

[livefrom]

22. Yes, which is why I said "as long as it is constitutional"

[VegasWolf]

18. Bidden and Lieberman were practically salivating all over the guy! nt

[depakid]

20. Ummm excuse me?

Are we suggesting the repeal of Marbury v. Madison?

This statement alone is reason for a filibuster. Congress can't overrule a Supreme Court decision that interprets the 5th and/or 14th Amendment. If he's saying that they can, that's tantamount to vitiating all of the protections in the Bill of Rights.