Judicial Activism or Judicial Restraint? (vanity)

[marylandrepub1]

"it seems awfully odd that they picked this issue not to intervene."


No, because in the liberal framework of the 'perfect' world='justice created Heaven on Earth' , we have no private property, but the voters(the majority) can put no restriction on certain (homo) sexual activities regardless of the negative effects of those activities(aids). In the first case the public good overides our rights. In the second the rights are so important that society must tolerate and support the activities regardless of the public good.

[elbucko]

However, after the SC's decisions for decades transferring power from the states to the FG on civil rights, abortion, sodomy, just to name a few issues...

It's bizarre. One can be sodomized in the privacy of ones bedroom all the while the city government is bulldozing that very same dwelling "for public use". Alice's White Rabbit is afoot upon the land and went down the SCOTUS hole.

[calex59]

The Court did not abdicate its responsibility. For once, it found a responsibility in which its infinite wisdom was unnecessary.

Sorry, but the SCOTUS used it's so called infinite wisdom to define "public use" as "public good". The didn't say the states should decide this for themselves, they defined it and then said the states should pass amendments to rectify their idiot decision. How is this staying out of it? They changed the wording of the constitution to meet their socialist opinion and you are saying they did the right thing! The right thing to do would have been to send it back down saying it wasn't within their jurisdiction to rule on it not make a ruling one way or the other.

The states had better start changing their constitutions, Texas and CA already have senators who are going to submit amendments on this matter, hopefully they will get them through.

[NRA1995]

It's eminent domain, not imminent.

I'd say, at the rate we're going, "imminent" is the correct word....

[krazyrep]

The thrust of the dissenting argument is that although the definition of "public use" in the Takings Clause is and has been quite flexible, the majority opinion in this case has so blurred the distinction between public and private so as to make the clause "for public use" irrelevant - a Constitutional no-no.

The Court has previously held that land may be taken for public use even if it later will be returned to private use. The government may take land for something such as a road or military base, or for something such as a railroad or public utility that, even if privately owned, conveys a specific public benefits. The current case meets niether of these conditions. The only other legitimate case for a government taking is where the pre-existing conditions in the area to be taken were so egregious that they inflicted affirmative harm on society and only a taking would suffice to remediate the harm - a claim not made by the government in this case.

Thus, far from being judicial restraint, the most leftward, activist Justices on the Court have decided that even well-maintained and societally beneficial areas may be taken simply if the local authorities decide they have some potential, secondary public benefit by giving it to someone else. This renders the Takings Clause irrelevant and is judicial activism at its highest.

[Morgan in Denver]

Without our being legal scholars or lawyers, my gut tells me to side with Justices Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia on this issue. If these Supreme Court justices are in the dissent, perhaps their reasoning is more compelling for conservatives than the liberal decision to maim the Bill of Rights. I'm sure more information will be coming out on this soon.

[dirtboy]

"I'd say, at the rate we're going, "imminent" is the correct word.... "

Quote of the week, IMO.

[dirtboy]

The states had better start changing their constitutions,

Here's the problem. The feds have already stuck their nose into local eminent domain issues. They have forbidden local zoning boards to prohibit cell-phone towers. With this ruling, the feds can short-circuit any state mandates on this matter as well.

[RAY]

A disgusting ruling by an arrogant court.

Check out this petition site:

http://www.petitiononline.com/5amend/petition-sign.html

An email correspondent's comment:

"FOLKS: This past week, SCOTUS (Supreme Court OF The United States) once again, has attempted to rewrite OUR Constitution to totally change the original intent as written by the Founders.

Eminent Domain was NEVER intended to be used by government EXCEPT to obtain property for roads, public buildings, schools, military bases and other necessary government usage.

This past week, the Supreme Court rewrote the Constitution, stating that it was legal for cities to condemn private property under Eminent Domain, to purchase and then resell to developers and other special interests, supposedly to benefit the community and the city by increasing tax revenues.

THIS IS TOTALLY BOGUS!

Please click on the link below and add your signature to the petition for a Constitutional Amendment to put a stop to this invitation to even more corruption within government and the theft of private homes and property for the financial benefit of a few.

http://www.petitiononline.com/5amend/petition-sign.html"

[PhilipFreneau]

>>> Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the elected governments of cities can't define "imminent domain" as land for a shopping mall ... But the Supreme Court...finally had the restraint not to involve itself in policy decisions.<<<

You are ignorant of the underlying principles of the Constitution. The conerstone of the Constitution is property rights, whether the property be something tangible, like land, or intangible, like the right to self defense or the free exercise of religion.

The Constitution also states clearly in the Ninth Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The right to private property was one of those retained rights, with the only significant threat to that right under British rule being "Bills of Attainder", which are specifically prohibited in the Constitution -- to the Federal Government by Article 1 Section 9, and to the states by Article 1 Section 10.

[Crush T Velour]

You are ignorant of the underlying principles of the Constitution. The conerstone of the Constitution is property rights, whether the property be something tangible, like land, or intangible, like the right to self defense or the free exercise of religion. The Constitution also states clearly in the Ninth Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The right to private property was one of those retained rights, with the only significant threat to that right under British rule being "Bills of Attainder", which are specifically prohibited in the Constitution -- to the Federal Government by Article 1 Section 9, and to the states by Article 1 Section 10.

Are you ignorant that one of the rights of THE PEOPLE is to pass stupid, invasive, and wrong-headed laws and to elect representatives that execute bad policy? This problem can be easily remedied through legislation. If we can stop assuming the SCOTUS can correct bad policy, we will be less tolerant when they get involved where they don't belong.

However, I think that the SCOTUS should have never agreed to hear this case, but since they did, they should not have chosen to blur the meanings of the term PUBLIC USE with the supposed PUBLIC GOOD, because it all comes down to taking property from one private person for the use of another private person....sort of like what the Americans did to the Indians in the Trail of Tears episode.

[PhilipFreneau]

I think that the SCOTUS should have never agreed to hear this case, but since they did, they should not have chosen to blur the meanings of the term PUBLIC USE with the supposed PUBLIC GOOD

Huh? The so-called "Supreme Court" has no authority to determine "Public Good". The Constitution alone determines Public Good. Read this excerpt from an 1792 editorial:

... "in order to render the success more certain, it will be of special moment [for the Tyrant] to give the most plausible and popular name that can be found to the power that is to be usurped. It may be called, for example, a power for the common safety or the public good, or, "the general welfare." If the people should not be too much enlightened, the name will have a most imposing effect. It will escape attention that it means, in fact, the same thing with a power to do anything the government pleases "in all cases whatsoever." -- from "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One", by Philip Freneau, Editor of the National Gazette -- a newspaper owned by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

[Crush T Velour]

I could not agree more with the sentiment and detail of everything you have posted above.