RoR: Forum

You will note that it is the court "liberals" who supported this expansion of eminent domain, and the "conservatives" who opposed it. Too often, these opposing factions are only defined by their positions on social issues, such as abortion, and not on economic issue.

Post 1

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 10:33am

James Kilbourne wrote:

You will note that it is the court "liberals" who supported this expansion of eminent domain, and the "conservatives" who opposed it. Too often, these opposing factions are only defined by their positions on social issues, such as abortion, and not on economic issue.

That is not true. Three of the five votes in the majority Souter, Breyer and Kennedy are moderate Republicans. Only Stevens and Ginsburg can even remotely be described as "liberal".
Kennedy and O'Connor are very similar in judicial philosophy, they are the important swing votes and differ only on particular issues.

This was a victory of the moderate middle of the Republican party over the conservative wing. It isn't a liberal-conservative issue at all. Seven of the nine justices are Republicans.

BTW the entire City Council in Mesa, Arizona, who voted for the condemnation in the Randy Bailey brake shop case litgated by the Institute for Justice and won in Arizona State Court was Republican.

Post 2

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 1:21pm

Bill,

Thanks for pointing this out! The moderate republicans are no friends of liberty when it comes to property rights.

BTW, my brother, Tom, has bought a house near Phoenix and will work in Fab capacity planning at the Intel site in Chandler. He plans to hook up with the Arizona Objectivists, so say Hi if you get out that way this year.

Jim

Post 3

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 4:51pm

Check out the Institute for Justice and the Castle Coalition for information about this and other eminent domain cases as well as efforts being made towards continuing the battle for property rights.

Post 4

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 5:59pm

My response when I heard of this decision yesterday was at first an audible gasp, then a moan of pure heartbreak. Optimism was an endangered outlook for me at that moment.

In my local paper today, an editor wrote that Michigan is (almost) immune to this Supreme Court ruling. Oakland Press business editor, Gary Gosselin, wrote:

Quoting Judge Avern Cohn, "In the Pinnacle Park decision, the Michigan Supreme Court, perhaps anticipating the way the United States Supreme Court would rule, artfully applied the Michigan constitutional provision on taking. That provision now obviously has a substantially narrower definition of what is in the public interest than the United States Supreme Court."
Quoting Norman Sommers, Esq., "Michigan was specifically cited in a footnote in the U.S. Supreme Court decision that states that communities with more stringent interpretations of the eminent domain laws would have precedence. We are safe in Michigan, unless - and it would be extremely rare - a federal authority came in and tried to take property, but that's rare, almost unprecedented."

That's comforting.

Teresa

Post 5

Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 9:17pm

I was flipping through the channels on Thursday night and came accross Tucker Carlson's (?) show on MSNBC (the guy with the bow tie from Crossfire). Says he's a Republican but he was against the war. Anyway, he happened to be interviewing the sick fuck who argued for taking peoples property in Kelo. Tucker ask him point blank however, "what do you say this woman" (the one we're talking about). He evaded the question a few times but Tucker presisted. He finally said, "I'd say sorry but its for the public good" God I wanted to punch him.

Post 6

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 4:19am

This is in the same line as defending sexuality via 'free speech' - until one recognises the root cause of the affliction, the battle cannot be won.... in the case of sexuality, it is the church/state separation - NOT the free speech - which is the battle line... in the case of Kelo, it is the eminent domain doctrine.... an evil which needs be shown for the evil it is, and removed. Period.

ALL eminent domain is abuse.....

(Edited by robert malcom on 6/26, 4:20am)

Post 7

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 4:30am

An article in the Times Union from Albany, NY starts:

Critics of the U.S. Supreme Court's Thursday ruling on eminent domain are decrying it as an assault on the rights of individual property owners. But the decision should be viewed from another perspective -- that is, the need to strike a balance between individual rights and the good of the community. On that basis, the majority ruling was the correct one.

Perhaps worse is this article from the Herald Tribune stating that since SCOTUS left the implementation of eminent domain to the states there really is not a problem.

Right. The failure to uphold rights is not a problem!

The intellectual battle has a long way to go.

Post 8

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 4:04pm