In light of the supreme court allowing private property for private business development, a hotel (which is going to be named the Lost Liberty Hotel) has decided to take the land/home of supreme court justice Souter. More to come in this interesting case...

So what do you think about this derranged move by the supreme court? What effect do you think it will have on the country socially and economically?

Are you living 3 months in the past or something? ;)

This week the ruling was upheld.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Are you living 3 months in the past or something? ;)

The ruling is not 3 months old, i made a thread here a little while after it happened about it, but that didn't go over well.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
This week the ruling was upheld.

There's no court higher than the Supreme Court to uphold it.

Originally posted by Evakian
The ruling is not 3 months old, i made a thread here a little while after it happened about it, but that didn't go over well.

Yeah, but there was at least one other thread not started by you that became a huge topic of discussion.

My knee-jerk conservative reaction was that it was wrong, the result was anyway.

But from a judicial philosophy standpoint, it was actually a conservative decision. The right usually believes that there should be more home rule and less interference from the federal government. This decision let stand one town's decision as to how it decided to best use it's land. The court said that the federal government has no interest in interfering. That's conservative.

An intellectually honest conservative would be in favor of the decision.

Originally posted by Brooks
My knee-jerk conservative reaction was that it was wrong, the result was anyway.

But from a judicial philosophy standpoint, it was actually a conservative decision. The right usually believes that there should be more home rule and less interference from the federal government. This decision let stand one town's decision as to how it decided to best use it's land. The court said that the federal government has no interest in interfering. That's conservative.

An intellectually honest conservative would be in favor of the decision.
So would an idiot who doesn't really like rights very much. Like the right not to get kicked out of your house.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
So would an idiot who doesn't really like rights very much. Like the right not to get kicked out of your house.

What I was saying is more complex than "Waaah, I don't like it".
The decision, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, is the correct one. The fault lies with the legislators in that town.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LionelHutz
[B]There's no court higher than the Supreme Court to uphold it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In case there is one American that did not already know this fact, I should have used the term reaffirmed.

I understand that the 5th. amendment requires just compensation. We need a court ruling that says that just compensation means that the bulk of any profit from the appropriation of the land belongs to the land owner NOT the land speculator. If the compensation includes the bulk of future profits tied to that parsel, there will be a lot less speculation and a lot less use of imminent domaine. Buy out would be incouraged.
Could be that there is more need of a statute rather than a court ruling.

Originally posted by Brooks
The right usually believes that there should be more home rule and less interference from the federal government. This decision let stand one town's decision as to how it decided to best use it's land. The court said that the federal government has no interest in interfering. That's conservative.

True, it is conservative (although not in the GWB style of conservatism) to not interfere in the affairs of the local government, but it is not conservative to allow any government to destroy the property rights of the individual.

But from a judicial philosophy standpoint, it was actually a conservative decision. The right usually believes that there should be more home rule and less interference from the federal government. This decision let stand one town's decision as to how it decided to best use it's land. The court said that the federal government has no interest in interfering. That's conservative. So its conservative to be a slave to business interests. Is that the point you're trying to make?

I thought it meant less government all around (real conservative not this neo bullshit) regerdless of level. This ruling was unconstitutional. According to this a whole town could boot anyone with under $50,000 in possessions under the idea of forced gentrification and increased tax revenue as a 'public service'.

Now a justice recants...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/politics/25memo.html?ei=5088&en=e5af3238afe6e196&ex=1282622400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1125347879-j1gqiGVGORUxVU6ShL4Ihg

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
So its conservative to be a slave to business interests. Is that the point you're trying to make?

No dear, the Supreme Court is much more complex than that. Their decision has nothing to do with the merits of the case. They decided that this particular decision, the federal government is not in a position to interfere (C'mon, you knew this. You're toying with us, right? Aren't you?)

You are saying that the federal government should not intervene no matter how idiotic or fascist the local government becomes because "fed gov bad, Local vog Good, no matter what". Thats just plain stupid.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
You are saying that the federal government should not intervene no matter how idiotic or fascist the local government becomes because "fed gov bad, Local vog Good, no matter what". Thats just plain stupid.

No. Not at all. The Supreme Court determined that the local government did not act extra-constitutionally in this particular case. Period.

In this case your idea of looking at the merits of the case would have made for a better decision than the one at which they arrived. The problem is, "idiotic or fascist" is too subjective for the Supreme Court to determine. This would lead to local government rules and regulations being changed whenever the makeup of the court changes. That's why they can only concern themselves with the constitutionality of a law.

This case is fairly obvious, but what about a more subtle case, like a guy not wanting phone lines through his backyard. To him personally, the town would be acting "idiotic or fascist".

Lets see government seizing land for a private business. Sounds pretty unconstitutional to me.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Lets see government seizing land for a private business. Sounds pretty unconstitutional to me.


:flowers:

O.K., you guys are pretty smart.
Let me hear some ideas as to how maybe the public can seize government property for private use. No revolutions please.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Lets see government seizing land for a private business. Sounds pretty unconstitutional to me.

Sounds that way to me too, but I think more people would trust constitutional decisions to the Supreme Court than to us.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
O.K., you guys are pretty smart.
Let me hear some ideas as to how maybe the public can seize government property for private use. No revolutions please.

I think people should be able to sue to have government property and projects legally declared as "Worthless Pork." In the case of property, the property would be sold to the highest bidder and the proceeds would be put towards retiring the national debt. In the case of projects, the project would be halted immediately and things would be put back to the way they were previously. All remaining funds would be used to retire the national debt.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I think people should be able to sue to have government property and projects legally declared as "Worthless Pork." In the case of property, the property would be sold to the highest bidder and the proceeds would be put towards retiring the national debt. In the case of projects, the project would be halted immediately and things would be put back to the way they were previously. All remaining funds would be used to retire the national debt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good thought Lionel, most everyone is aware of pork projects. To my knowledge nothing, but bellyaching, has occured as a recourse.

I cannot help but wonder what the result of such a lawsuit would be and what the grounds would be?
Who would be named in the suit?

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
I cannot help but wonder what the result of such a lawsuit would be and what the grounds would be?

The result? I dunno - it's hard to imagine Congress really changing. Maybe they'd just tone down the pork so it was lower profile. The grounds? I don't know how you go about proving pork. I think you could make a rule that if the project is named after a current member of Congress that would be prima facie evidence of pork. Which would've kiledl off the Ted Stevens airport in Anchorage and just about everything in West Virginia, since it's all named after Sen. Byrd.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Who would be named in the suit?

The law could just designate someone to be sued to represent the United States, like the Speaker of the House or the AG or the Secretary of the Interior. It doesn't really matter because they wouldn't be personally liable.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Lets see government seizing land for a private business. Sounds pretty unconstitutional to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading the Constitution as a novice, the only 2 things that I could find was the 10 acres for the capital and seizing land for forts and military bases to defend the country.

It did mention just compensation for land seized by the government.

Could not find anything about private use.

If the compensation includes the bulk of future profits tied to that parsel, there will be a lot less speculation and a lot less use of imminent domaine. Good point Dan but not likely to happen. I agree there's a huge difference in seizing a piece of land in order to build, say, a highway extension or a bridge, and seizing a piece of land to give to a developer. If the developer needs the land in order to complete a parcel, then let him pony up and BUY IT HIMSELF. Further proof of how big business has insinuated itself into politics....

Originally posted by fluffernutter
Good point Dan but not likely to happen. I agree there's a huge difference in seizing a piece of land in order to build, say, a highway extension or a bridge, and seizing a piece of land to give to a developer. If the developer needs the land in order to complete a parcel, then let him pony up and BUY IT HIMSELF. Further proof of how big business has insinuated itself into politics....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree, it is not likely to happen. But, would be the prudent thing to do.

I am having a problem with the fact that the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the law according to the Constitution and bill of rights.

The facts are spelled out about private citizens having the right to own property.

I found no writings supporting taking land from private citizens to give to other private citizens for personal gain.
Where did the Supreme Court get the reasons for their actions, in this matter, other than creating a ruling without any legal basis.

Once this type thing begins, what is next, where is the end?