| Author |
Message |
    
M2me
| | Posted on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 07:36 pm: | 
|
This should be resolved when the new court convenes with Justice Roberts and Chief Justice Thomas residing.
I'm not following your logic. 
In the first place, if Roberts is confirmed he would be replacing O'Connor. O'Connor wrote the dissenting opinion. If you have four dissenters and take away one and then add a dissenter what have you got? You've got four dissenters, same as you started out with. In the second place, it's a bit of a stretch to just assume that Roberts would be a dissenter on this case.
Oh yeah, how did Thomas get to be Chief Justice? Anyway, Rehnquist was also one of the four dissenters so the arithmetic would then be start with four dissenters, subtract two and add two. Again, you have to assume that the Rehnquist replacement would be a dissenter. But you're still right back where you started. 5-4 in favor on this questionable opinion. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 07:47 pm: |
|
Roberts is said to be a strict constructionist. I say he is a lock.
Thomas as CJ will wield more influence than Rhenquist, who was at death's door during this ruling.
The wild card is the justice who is added when Rhenquist is gone. I say Bush appoints a ..... strict constructionist.
That is the way it will be................!
(Message edited by brucelee on August 01, 2005) |
Jlnance
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 12:16 am: |
|
I don't understand the credibility comment. Exactly who is the audience that you believe we are losing credibility with?
With me for one. Maby I'm the only one. 
My concern is that the judicial system is based on the idea of precidence. If the justices don't feel they are bound by the decisions of their predicessors, then precidence doesn't mean much.
You make a good point about the justices making mistakes. Surely they do, and I am not nieve enough to pretend that they don't. I'd just like some way to correct them with out having to worry about my constitutional rights, which have been clarified by 200 years of court cases, getting "reinterpreted" in the process. |
Ryker77
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 09:22 am: |
|
Maybe it would be even better to pay 105-110% fair market value and "stock" in the land forever. A cut of the profits.
Now thats a great idea. The owner might have had intentions years back when the land was purchased that it would soon be very valuable. Like my house. I know its a •••••• neighbor hood. But when I purchased the house - it was with the assumption that in the long run the land would be valuable for "other" reasons. It would be wrong for my cheap house to be taken away from me (BY THE RICH), when in fact it "could" be worth alot of money. Looks like a method the rich can get over on people. At first I was OK with it but now that I look at the big picture and who gets screwed -- I'm pissed at this.}
  |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 09:25 am: |
|
Good points on precedents. However, it is still preferable (IMHO) to get it right rather than follow what has gone before. I think it Constitutional intent on this issue is clear and the court made a stupendous mistake in its ruling.
Here in San Diego, the land grab that led to our new downtown ballpark was a gross example of private parties benefiting from the use of ED. It was appalling and given our current corruption problems, it will certainly come to light how many elected officials were on the take in that scam.
Disgusting in my opinion. |
M2me
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 11:54 pm: |
|
Thomas as CJ will wield more influence than Rhenquist, who was at death's door during this ruling.
From what I understand of the Supreme Court (which is very little, BTW) the Chief Justice is largely a ceremonial role. The CJ writes the majority opinion or designates another justice to do it (assuming the CJ agrees with the majority). Same thing with the dissenting opinion. The CJ probably gets the best parking spot, etc. but the Supreme Court is not supposed to be a political organization. They are appointed for life and are supposed to be beholden only to the law. No Supreme Court Justice, not even the Chief Justice, is supposed to wield influence over the others. They are all supposed to be influenced only by their interpretation of the Constitution.
So I'm still confused by your logic. The Chief Justice is going to influence the other Justices? How? By withholding priveleges, appointments, etc.? The Chief Justice doesn't have those powers. |
Taxman
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 08:50 am: |
|
what you guys are failing to see is that without the right of eminent domain:
-you would have no roads with wich to ride your buells. that is the only way that the local or state government has to claim property for the right to put in local roads highways and freeways. if there was no eminent domain i'm sure there would be a few roads but you would not have a very nice layout. you would only have the areas that people were willing to give up on there own, a mile here... a mile there. kiss your highways goodbye.
-the people that are unhappily uprooted are compensated very well for there property. in michigan the law states that they will be payed fair market value for there property, and that in some situations additional costs are payed for relocation.
it does seem that this specific example (handing over the siezed property to a land developer) isn't quite kosher. however you need to realize that there is probably a whole city block that is being renovated. it is a shame that these two businesses were happy with how things were. but i'm sure that the area as a whole will be vastly improved. and i'm sure that the business owners were offered more than there property was actually worth. wether or not they could get past there own ignorance and except the money is there own issue.
eminent domain has been around since the inception of our country and is a big part of what makes the united states so easy to travel. there is always a downside to every good thing.
no one minds when some one elses property is siezed so that bypass can run around your town and eleviate traffic. but heaven forbid it run through your property.
we should all choose to not make a comment like M2me and go back to talking about how cool our bikes are. i'm going to go back to work, then go home and take my bike for a ride down a road that i helped to confiscate from some poor soul so that i could drive to and from detroit an hour faster than i used to. its good to work for the man! 
p.s. i know my spelling sucks |
Bomber
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 08:56 am: |
|
while I hung up my moderator spurs some time ago, I can't help but think this thread is a political one -- although the tenor of the discourse has been higher and less contentious than these threads often engender, I'd suggest that a sharp-eyed moderator kill it, pursuant to the rules of the board
thanks |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
No one is arguing about the appropriate use of ED for its traditional uses, ie Interstates etc.
That is use IS in the constitution.
However, in the case in question, the land was taken and given to a private developer, who promised that the new projects he was doing would add jobs and tax revenue to the towns coffers.
The town thought that was a nice idea so the person's right to own their own property was disregarded and they were effectively evicted, albeit legally.
I can't see how the founders of our country had this little deal in mind! |
Outrider
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 12:31 pm: |
|
Bruce...Without going politico, I agree.
It appears that local government is interfering with private enterprise for the sake of Urban Renewal.
In all my years living in So Cal, I witnessed a lot of shady redevelopment deals involving politicians, however, they were totally funded by the developer and due compensation was awarded to the displaced persons.
It will be interesting to see how this incident in Oakland ends up. |
Davegess
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 07:35 pm: |
|
And in response to this ruling several states are rewriting ED laws to make sure this can't be done in their states. Kinda how it is supposed to work. |
Mikej
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 08:54 am: |
|
There have been plenty of interstates and roadways that have been routed at additional costs to specifically avoid certain people's properties. Graft and corruption are always looking for advantages or special protections to abuse.
This ends my political commentary on this thread.  |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 10:24 am: |
|
Someday, the entire San Diego-Petco Park fiasco will come out. When it does, I hope many go to jail. This was a city backed takeover for pure financial gain.
Hey, they did get a nice ballpark though. Isn't that what cities are SUPPOSED to look like? |
Hans
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
Bomber,
The rules are still quite simple:
http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/board-instructions.html#contrib
Even hawk eyed custodians don`t see any personal attacks here.
Badweb is such a great place to hang out, because Buell enthusiasts can ventilate their emotions, even when not directly Buell related.
No reason to delete this interesting thread IMHO.
Hans |
Bomber
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 11:34 am: |
|
Hans -- I bow to your obviously more clear-eyed view --
thanks |
Oldog
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 01:29 pm: |
|
I wonder what the founding fathers would say of what happened in CA
I would be willing to bet that they would not approve,
I do hope that the businesses that were up rooted and the people who where "evicted" were compensated fairly, and given reasonable assistance if needed, If the residents of that city are alarmed by what has happened perhaps the best thing to do is ask who on the council voted which way and why, if as a citizen you find the answers not to your liking vote them out, thats what happened to Gray Davis yes?
and perhaps if that happens the "elected" politicos might come to the understanding of
"Public Servants" which is what they were elected to be.
As citizens of this great nation we have two ways
at the minimum to express our pleasure or displeasure on a subject,
at the ballot box and with the "check book" |
M2me
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 02:06 am: |
|
This stuff has been going on for decades. Sadly, ballparks are often featured (I'm a baseball fan). I recently saw the Independent Lens show on PBS about Chavez Ravine.
It's obvious that the reason this thread has not devolved into partisan politics and personal attacks is because the vast majority of Americans are troubled by this kind of use of Eminent Domain. Everybody is in agreement! |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 09:34 am: |
|
"It's obvious that the reason this thread has not devolved into partisan politics and personal attacks is because the vast majority of Americans are troubled by this kind of use of Eminent Domain. Everybody is in agreement!"
Agreed. The right to live in your home without having it taken away seems to be one we hold to dearly.
Otherwise, we all might as well live back in the feudal days, when we worked the farms for the man on the hill! |
|
