This is one heck of a Supreme Court ruling!

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Jake_A, Jun 23, 2005.

Loading...
  1. Jake_A

    Jake_A New Member

  2. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    This is just following lower court precedent. See the Poletown case out of Michigan. Very unfortunate. Under any rational theory of the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment, eminent domain takings must be adequately compensated and should be for a public purpose. "Public purpose" now means anything the government wants it to mean. I think it's foolishness.
     
  3. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    And since when has the Supreme Court been obliged to follow lower court precedent? I was of the impression that the only precedent that the Supreme Court might have to follow is Supreme Court precedent. Isn't the very reason we have a Supreme Court so that there will be someone (actually, nine someones, according to current practice) who will presumably be wise enough to know that the lower court judges are wrong and generally full of shyte? And have the gazongas to stand up and say so? And, for that matter, can't the Supreme Court ignore or overturn the stupider prior Supreme Court precedents if one can prove said prior Supreme Court precedents to be unconstitutional as well as stupid. As Prof. Lou Morton was always so fond of pointing out, a stupid law is not necessarily an unconstitutional law. Which is unfortunate.

    Apparently, if you're rich enough to buy a few local yokel politicians, you can now go around bulldozing other people's houses --- and for little or nothing for compensation. I say, bulldoze the developers' houses --- with the developers and their families in them --- and then build malls on the sites of said deceased developers' homes --- and award ownership of said malls to those whose homes were originally slated to be bulldozed.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 23, 2005
  4. RobbCD

    RobbCD New Member

    This is a bad precedent to set, it's easy to abuse and I'm sure it will cause harm to innocent businesspeople and families down the road.

    But it is (I dare say) good for New London, which will need all of the help that it can get as BRACC gets ready to move the subs to South Carolina and close the Groton Navy Base.
     
  5. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    No, you're right, of course they don't have to follow any lower court. And for that matter, they can overturn themselves at will. A few decades ago, they did it with the death penalty, as prosecutors, judges and legislators nationwide tried to figure out what to do with pending cases as the Supreme Court went through this crazy dance of saying: "So and-so is the law on the death penalty", then a couple years later saying "No, so-and-so is unconstitutional", then a couple years after that saying: "No, we actually meant such-and-such all along. Really. Honestly."

    I was just saying the concept that the government can take away your land to give it to a private developer--like a reverse Robin Hood--and call it constitutional is nothing new. It dates back over two decades. Of course the Supreme Court could've said whatever they wanted. They just weren't tilling up new soil here. The concept--one I personally think outrageous--has been been cussed and discussed in the Ivory Towers of law schools for over a generation, and has come to be accepted by many scholars and judges--and apparently by a majority of Supreme Court justices.

    I personally think it's roughly akin to that which proceeds from the rump end of a chicken. But that's just me, call me crazy, I thought the Bill of Rights actually had a few teeth to them. Apparently not.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 23, 2005
  6. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Durn shame. The mostly-libertarian Institute for Justice won such a case against Donald Trump and the Atlantic City scoundrels. Hopefully, that small victory was not in vain. Maybe the US Senate will do the right thing.
     
  7. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    little fauss' point is still correct, though. The Supreme Court is not bound by lower Court precedent but where there is a body of lower court case law that establishes a particular principal, the Supreme Court is generally more reluctant to overturn it because people have likely been relying on that body of law in arranging their legal affairs.

    Actually, there was a Supreme Court case out of Hawai'i in, what, 1989? that upheld the condemnation of land for the purpose of resale to homeowners. This decision is really nothing all that new.
     
  8. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Nosborne is sometimes wrong (such as, when he disagrees with me) but often times right (such as, when he agrees with me).

    Of course, he's quite right here.
    :D
     
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Seems the five justices who favored this absurdity are the ones generally considered moderate-liberal.

    This is one reason we need the Thomas' and Scalia's on the court. The court should be balanced!
     
  10. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    The Court should be balanced? Let's see here. Of the nine members of the Court, six I can identify as Republicans (Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Stevens, and Thomas), one I can identify as a Democrat (Ginsburg), and two (Breyer and Souter) I'm not sure about. So clearly it is not balanced. The only one I can identify as a Democrat, much to my embarrassment, took the wrong side in this case as did the two whose political affiliations I am unable to identify. So why should the Court be balanced, since obviously such Democrats as are on the Court voted wrong in this case? Can anyone fill in the missing info and correct my errors, if any, in political identification?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 24, 2005
  11. Jeff Walker

    Jeff Walker New Member

    Political affiliation is meaningless on the court. Once appointed, justices do their own thing, as proven by the current court. Regardless of who appointed them, Souter, Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsuburg are considered "liberal". Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist are the "conservatives". Kennedy and O'Connor are the moderates, who generally act as the swing votes.

    For the record, Breyer was appointed by Clinton. Ford appointed Stevens and Bush (41) appointed Souter. But both side more often with Breyer/Ginsburg more often than Scalia/Thomas.

    Bottom line - this was a straight idealogical divide with the "liberals" (perhaps more accurately social democrats in this case) voting to expand government's right to sieze private property with the "conservatives" voting against.
     
  12. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Interesting. In the seventeenth century, liberals believed in the natural right to property (as well as life and liberty), while conservatives were the ones who thought that the government had the absolute right to do whatever the heck they wanted. How far we have come! Sad!
     
  13. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    So you're saying that the reason John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter became liberals is that they were appointed by a couple of our wimpier Republican presidents?
     
  14. Jeff Walker

    Jeff Walker New Member

    Possibly, though Bush also appointed Thomas. In the case of Souter, I think the nomination had more to do with a strong recommendation from John Sununu and the fact that Souter hadn't really done much as a judge, thus ensuring an easier confirmation process. Of course not having a long case history also meant that they really didn't have a clue how he would rule as a justice.
     
  15. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    It really doesn't seem to matter much which party appoints a Justice; once on the Supreme Court, the Justices are completely independent (except where strictly political cases appear. Look at the vote on Bush v. Gore)

    The decision, which I haven't read, BTW, really isn't absurd. It sounds bad because we think generally in terms of "owning" real estate but as a technical matter, no lawyer should ever claim that his client "owns" a piece of property.

    All real estate actually belongs to the sovereign in a common law society. Citizens have various rights, possessory and non-possessory, in described parcels but possessory estates are always termed "tenancies".

    If you think about it, this makes more sense than "ownership" would. The constitutions of the federal and state governments all permit takings with compensation for a "public purpose". It doesn't say "for public ownership". Now, who gets to decide what a "public purpose" is? The Courts? Based on what? No, the policy makers decide what is a public purpose. That means the legislature.

    Also keep in mind that, in theory, money is ALWAYS sufficient compensation for real estate. Therefore, again in theory, the dispossessed landowner loses nothing by a compensated taking.

    If the public doesn't agree with the public policy, the public has the power to restrain its legislatures from exercising it.
     
  16. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Personally, I've always fantasized that, had I been President (or Emperor) at the time, I'd have appointed Anita Hill to the Supreme Court. But maybe that's just me.
     
  17. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Hmm. Are we saying then that the government owns all real estate and the people individually merely rent from the state fiefdoms of greater or lesser size?

    Who exactly is the sovereign here? Did the people, in agreeing to the social contract, give up ALL of their sovereignty, including their sovereign right to their own land? So much for a man being king in his own castle?

    Let's see here. If I understand eminent domain correctly, the government can take your land away if they darn well please, they can define public purpose as fastly and loosely as they please (especially if they've been appropriately bought by their rich friends in the private sector), and the government gets to define how much compensation is just without even a pretense of comparing what fair market value would be if the government weren't threatening to steal same.

    Hmm. If a man doesn't even have property rights in his own house, what rights does he have? This decision clearly sucks, no matter what the technically correct legal mumbo jumbo might say --- it is quite clearly morally bankrupt and should be overthrown.
     
  18. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Not exactly.

    It's a bit complicated. You have to draw a distinction between the government as sovereign and government as just another "owner" of real estate.

    You also have to understand that "ownership" meaning individual possession that is never subject to government intereference is a concept that does not exist, and has NEVER existed, in common law.

    So when you say "rental", that's not quite right but neither is the implied contrast, "ownership".
     
  19. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    I was just giving this a bit more thought...the very term "eminent domain" kind of describes it, doesn't it?

    You might think of eminent domain as a non possessory interest in your land that belongs to the government. In order to perfect its interest, the government must go through the condemnation procedure and pay "adequate" compensation. Until it does so, you "own" your land.

    Technically, this really isn't correct because if the government really had such an interest, it would also have certain other rights to your property that it in fact does not have.

    But please remember, no matter how you think of it, the law considers the taking to be "compensated." The property owner is seen as having lost nothing.
     
  20. DTechBA

    DTechBA New Member

    Property rights

    What eminent domain says is that while a person or entity may own a piece property the needs of the group has precedence. So, while the government is not the real owner of a piece of property, if they can show the needs of the community are acute they can usurp ones property. However, lately the definition of what is beneficial for the community as a whole is being stretched a bit....
     

Share This Page