Please Help me Understand

[bpyatt]

I'm mostly moderate with a slight lean towards liberalism.

This recent SCOTUS is absolutely ridiculous. Please tell me why the more liberal judges voted for this? This is exactly what Big Business wants, developers are licking their chops, local government officials in the hand of developers.

I could understand when it was for public use (roads and such) but now it can be for generating tax revenue.

This has mutiny/revolution written all over it.





Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

By HOPE YEN
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 23, 2005; 11:43 AM



WASHINGTON -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

The 5-4 ruling _ assailed by dissenting Justice Sanday Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America _ was a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

---------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. Maybe it was the electronic vote

Beyond that, I can't figure it out either.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Because very few true liberals are in places of power anywhere in the gov'

Welcome to one-party rule.. the corporate party.

[getmeouttahere]

3. It's beyond my realm of comprehension....

Why would ANYONE be for this???

[meganmonkey]

4. It is mind-boggling, isn't it?

I haven't read enough about it to really grasp the reasoning, not sure I WANT my brain to understand the logic ;)

There is a very active thread about this in the Latest Breaking News section:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1574059

And Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[Warpy]

5. They have taken leave of their senses

That's the only explanation I can think of. This ruling is one of the most dreadful to come out of that court and puts us all into jeopardy of losing our homes to greed.

This, on top of their idiotic ruling against states' rights concerning medical marijuana prescriptions, makes me conclude that they're being poisoned with psychoactive drugs.

I can think of no other explanation.

[dajoki]

11. don't forget bush v gore

:wtf:

[SteppingRazor]

6. It makes perfect sense from a sort of paleo-liberal perspective

A traditionally liberal stance would look at eminent domain and say that, even if not directly public, the public gains from offering private land to a private developer would outweigh a homeowner's concerns, especially if that homeowner is adequately compensated.

Now, most modern liberals (myself definitely included) have a libertarian streak running through their liberalism that makes this sort of "the collecctive is all" mentality anathema. But to old-school liberals, this decision comes as no surprise.

Make any sense?

[bvar22]

12. I know many "PaleoLiberals".

NONE have EVER supported the Government taking one citizen's Private Property and giving it to another (RICH & CONNECTED)Private Citizen!!!

Communists support the Govermant taking Private Property and holding it in the name of ALL citizens...something I have also NEVER heard a Liberal (Paleo or otherwise) support!

You have mis-represenated PaleoLiberals, a rather vague term used to describe FDR Democrats or Wellstone Democrats.

Only willfully mis-informed propagandists equate Liberalism with Communism.

I AM a PaleoLiberal (FDR Democrat). There are MANY PaleoLiberals on DU. I have NEVER read a post by a legitimate DUer advocating the Federal Goverment nationalize Private Property!!

[salin]

14. another FDR liberal chiming in... no eminent domain for

private use... for serious puiblic use (eg desperately needed hospital, perhaps...) any other - never heard support for that.

More likely the 30 years plus of propoganda that all things that benefit "development" (business) also benefits the public is the reasoning... which is a fairly business centrist/centric view, imo, of which much of the "ruling class" would agree with.

Think it has more to do with what happens when folks are in the insular DC too long and have bitten out of that what-is-good-for-corps-is-good-for-the-community tripe.

[Rose Siding]

7. Here are some excerpts of the decision

Several Justices are quoted, but I'm afraid I'm with O'Conner on this one:

snip>
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. "(T)hat alone is a just government," wrote James Madison, "which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own."'

_Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in dissent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300919.html

[EC]

8. This is the new Ownership Society....

We can own it, until someone else (rich corporations and governments) decides they want it...:sarcasm:

[usregimechange]

9. I don't agree with the decision but you may want to read Stevens

carefully.

[ibegurpard]

10. Naivete

They are still under the impression, as are many people with faith in good government, that our system is going to favor the public good instead of outside influences.

[welshTerrier2]

13. i agree with the liberals on the Court

before some of you jump all over me, please read my posts in the previous thread on this subject:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1878929&mesg_id=1878929

the Fifth Amendment states that governments have the right to seize private property (i.e. eminent domain) for "public use" ...

my first point is that, even though certain corporations will benefit from this seizure in New London, that does NOT mean that the community will NOT also benefit ... the local government cited a "public use" which was that there will be increased tax revenues and more jobs as a result of this action ...

i believe the Court was right to leave the power to make these decisions in the hands of the elected government ... please understand that this does NOT mean that some or even many governments are not absolutely corrupt and in the pocket of big money ...

the real problem we face is that big money has totally corrupted our democracy ... every lobbyist and any government official who meets with one or accepts money from one should be beheaded ... the problem is undue corporate influence on our elected officials ...

having said that, the Court was right not to block "good government" from acting in the best interests of local communities ... i consider raising more revenues for the tax base to be a legitimate "public use" ...

some accept the idea of "eminent domain" as enumerated in the Fifth Amendment for such purposes as building hospitals, roads, schools, libraries and so forth ... but suppose the current tax base in a community, due to the lack of commercially available space, is insufficient to pay for those projects ... if a community seeks an increase in the tax base so that it can afford the very projects you approve of, is this not a legitimate "public use" ???

i think there are two views that are making people here oppose the Court's decision ...

the first is that some people here are really not progressives - they're libertarians ... they don't think the government and the citizens the government is elected to represent should have more rights than the individual ... they don't trust governments to do the right thing ... and they believe that they earned it, they bought it, and it's theirs ... i don't consider this to be a progressive view ...

the second group (i consider this a progressive view) objects because they see the stranglehold that big money has on our democracy ... there is no question that big money has totally poisoned the best intentions of our Constitution and our country's ideals ... but to rule in favor of blocking governments from acting in the best interests of a community doesn't seem like the right solution to the problem ... what we need is better government that values the best interests of all its citizens, not just the wealthy; what we don't need are Court rulings that tie the hands of governments from being able to do just that ...

it seems to me that increasing the tax base and creating more jobs is a perfectly valid interpretation of the Constitution's "public use" clause ... the fact that certain corporations may, in this case, directly benefit from the ruling does not preclude the community realizing the benefits they enumerated ... it is NOT at all surprising that the liberals on the Court voted as they did to protect the rights of governments to serve the best interests of the community as they see fit ... it is also not surprising that many DU'ers who see themselves as progressives have a huge capitalist, libertarian approach to their thinking ... capitalism always puts the ME ahead of the US ...