Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.
"I think it has already been explained to you, and you stubbornly simply insist on simply being French about it:
SCOTUS is constrained by (1) prevailing mores within the Guild; if it just went wild, the institution would lose prestige where it counted, and that would not be a good long term power retention strategy for SCOTUS, (2) the power of the president to nominate and the senate to confirm justices carefully chosen to reflect more popular views when court decisions become controversial (FDR did that, and got a SCOTUS more to his liking, which reminds me that the power to pass laws to "pack the court" is also lurking out there), (3) the power to pass laws restricting SCOTUS's jurisdiction, (4) the power of Congress to impeach, convict and remove, and (5) the ability of parties to not petition SCOTUS for certiorari (that often happens when a losing party at the lower court level, chooses not to petition, because they think they will lose at the SCOTUS level, and create a "bad" precedent.
Just because some of the above constraints rarely manifest themselves in action, does not mean that they do not exist as constraints (the Robes know that they are there)."
Alright, so there are all of those constraints.
What have they constrained the US Supreme Court from making law?
Not on the taking of private property.
Not on limiting what can be regulated.
Not on abortion.
Not on homosexual issues.
Not on segregation and busing issues, historically.
Not on telling farmers that growing crops for themselves was interstate commerce.
I do not see any real constraint at all.
I see a phantom of a constraint which is fervently believed to be there, but which for all practical purposes, isn't.
And I see Americans like yourself very passionately hating all of these laws, and equally passionately screaming at me that the system is wonderful, properly constructed, and has all the limits that anything requires.
What I see among Americans on this point is the sort of stubbornness that I see in the French when it comes to any reform of labor laws. What exists doesn't work and makes many, many people very unhappy. What exists, in a different light, is sacred: "the Constitution", or "la solidarite sociale", and must be defended in all of its sacred honor.
The result is cognitive dissonance. Terrible labor law that cannot be changed because labor law is sacred and "for the public good". Terrible concentration of authority that cannot be changed because "the Constitution is perfect in every way".
I acknowledge that it stirs up trouble to say: French labor law stinks, and the American constitutional order is misaligned.
I acknowledge that the French start pulling up paving stones and the Americans start brandishing the bloody flag when you put either the blessed "solidarite sociale" or the sacred "Constitution" in a critical light.
The truth hurts.
But at the end of the day, if anything is ever going to change in the worst aspects of either country, the root problem must be faced squarely and honestly and altered.
French labor law and the US Constitutional structure must be changed for the worst aspects of each society to be fixed.
Things aren't bad enough yet in either country to force the change of faith - for that is what is really involved -required to effect reform.
Two points:
1) I wasn't fully aware of the court case details before I mouthed off the 1st time.
2) I found Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion to be very compelling.
Sorry for mouthing off without all the facts. But we must still not forget to hold the original jerks in the city council responsible.
Also, one dilemma I found is embodied in the following hypothetical scenario. Let's say the govt takes property through what is generally agreed to be a valid application of eminent domain (let's say some western land for a wildlife preserve). How long thereafter is it valid for the government to change course and decide to sell it off (let's say to local ranchers) without the claim of foul play?
Clearly 100 years later would raise no "eminent domain" hackles. Clearly an immediate resale would be like the present situation. What about a year? Five years?
I guess it would be for the courts to decide if the selloff was premeditated before the original taking.
"Then you're no better than some Communist regime taking homes from people for development purposes.
This law won't last long. There will be a constitutional amendment and it'll pass like flying colors. "
So, are WalMart, Vornado, GE Capital, JP Morgan and Costco, these huge capitalist entreprises, Communist regimes? They are the ones who benefit most from this sort of eminent domain takings.
You predict a constitutional amendment.
How long do you predict that will be.
I predict there will be no constitutional amendment, that the US Congress will handily reject any effort to make one, and that the Supreme Court's decision will remain the law of the United States.
I think the law will remain as it is because it powerfully benefits the most powerful money interests in both US political parties.
For the same reason, I predict that the US border with Mexico will not ever be closed.
I wrote: "On the other hand, there is the directly conflicting view that views the right to family privacy and the home as a fundamental human right. This is not currently US law, but it is currently French law."
You replied: "Bzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong. See Griswold Penumbras et al."
Oh, certainly under US law there is an absolute right to privacy. But it only applies to abortion, birth control and homosexual sex. Otherwise, there is no fundamental human right to privacy in the United States. If I snap your picture on the street with your family, or your mistress, and publish this, in the US I am exercising my right of free speech. In France, I am committing the crime of assault on your private life.
In the US, if I sue you, I can demand your personal papers and rifle through them to try and find evidence against you: "discovery".
In France, if I sue you, I have no right at all to your private papers. That would be an assault on my privacy.
And so on.
In the US, when it comes to killing children and sodomy, there is indeed a constitutional right of privacy, emanating from the penumbra of some amendments to the US Constitution.
In France, there is a formal, legal right of privacy, and it is a criminal offense to intrude upon private life in any vector. Such exceptions as there are, are derogations from the general rule that privacy is a fundamental human right.
America's penumbra of privacy is the right to use a condom while having sex, with a man or woman, and if with a woman and she gets pregnant, for her to kill the baby practically until childbirth.
France's fundamental privacy is a fundamental right of privacy. Companies cannot collect your private information and sell it. People cannot take your picture and publish it. Enemies cannot sue you and subpoena your private papers.
Right to private sex and infanticide is limited.
It is not a fundamental human right to private life in general. The French right is a fundamental human right to private life in general.
Imagine a 28th Amendment to the US Constitution:
"The right of persons to maintain their privacy shall be protected by law and shall not infringed by law."
That is not American law.
It is French law.
I like to bring this up because folks like you just utterly hate and despise the French. It is pleasant taunting you with rights that you wish you had, but that the French do have. Not everything in France is crazy and ridiculous, and really we should not pretend that it is.
"Do it or die."
OK, OK - I posted my own thread here : SIGN THE SCJ IMPEACHMENT PETITION! (VANITY)
BTW, I gave you credit for it, LOL.
Au contraire amigo. There are no "absolute rights", there are however absolute truths and one of those is that socialism destroys the human spirit.
But it only applies to abortion, birth control and homosexual sex. Otherwise, there is no fundamental human right to privacy in the United States.
Incorrect again. Sodomy is not a fundamental right. But yes the courts have ruled that killing babies is a fundamental right. Merde'.
If I snap your picture on the street with your family, or your mistress, and publish this, in the US I am exercising my right of free speech. In France, I am committing the crime of assault on your private life.
Any wonder why fascism raises its ugly head in Europe every 50 years or so?
In the US, if I sue you, I can demand your personal papers and rifle through them to try and find evidence against you: "discovery".
Uh, nope. We do have discovery of course but discovery comes with limits, not enough limits perhaps but limits nonetheless. We see justice as a higher goal than privacy. For instance, beating your mistress in the privacy of ones bedroom while videotaping it would result in the videotape being admitted to evidence. Justice.
In France, if I sue you, I have no right at all to your private papers. That would be an assault on my privacy.
Must make contract law a nightmare for the lawyers, eh?
In the US, when it comes to killing children and sodomy, there is indeed a constitutional right of privacy, emanating from the penumbra of some amendments to the US Constitution.
No fundamental right to sodomy in America, you're not quite conversant on that topic but pretty good for a Frenchie.
In France, there is a formal, legal right of privacy, and it is a criminal offense to intrude upon private life in any vector. Such exceptions as there are, are derogations from the general rule that privacy is a fundamental human right.
You're repeating yourself.
America's penumbra of privacy is the right to use a condom while having sex, with a man or woman, and if with a woman and she gets pregnant, for her to kill the baby practically until childbirth.
LOL, you were doing good for a while and now you've devolved to farce.
France's fundamental privacy is a fundamental right of privacy. Companies cannot collect your private information and sell it. People cannot take your picture and publish it. Enemies cannot sue you and subpoena your private papers.
Repeat, repeat, repeat. See above.
Imagine a 28th Amendment to the US Constitution: "The right of persons to maintain their privacy shall be protected by law and shall not infringed by law."
Wonderful.
That is not American law. It is French law.
C'est la vie.
I like to bring this up because folks like you just utterly hate and despise the French.
Now you're lying. I don't like your current government. I don't like your socialist ways and I don't like the ingratitude of your country in general. But I don't hate with a broad brush. And I'm getting not to like you very much because MHO is you are dishonest. A lefty in righty clothing so to speak.
It is pleasant taunting you with rights that you wish you had, but that the French do have. Not everything in France is crazy and ridiculous, and really we should not pretend that it is.
Right, but I see you've failed to commenton your anemic growth rate since 1980 an unemployment rate that is off the charts and all coinciding with your love affair with socialism. Keep taunting, it may work. You can taunt some of the peple some of the time but others of us just laugh becuase we know you are FOS.
Regards.
The new New London Municipal Song:
This land was your land
but now it's my land
I got a shotgun
and you don't got one
I'll blow your head off
if you don't get off
This land WAS private property!
Rehnquist will retire soon. Then Bush nominates his pick for CJ.
IF (big "if", probably not) Bush were to nominate Scalia or Thomas to the CJ post, an Associate Justice place opens up, and either Gonzalez (probably) or an appeals-court judge goes in.
Based on the signals so far, it sounds like Bush is going to stiff the sitting AJ's and nominate his houseboy for the CJ slot. That would be breathtakingly bad judgment, but there's a precedent.
In two mayoral races in Houston, Manor Bush openly backed a Cuban-American GOP candidate, and they did so in a very conspicuous manner that I thought actually weakened the candidate himself, in order to push the point that the Bush family is Hispanic-friendly. In so doing they showed bad judgment -- bad for him -- but sacrificed his interest to get their own message out. Bush will do the same thing he's done before, and push a weak nominee and accept criticism for it, in order to be seen as promoting the interests of Hispanics, especially illegal aliens. It's you and me, pal, you work cheap and I am very loyal to you! I am a good employer! That's the message , and he'll even sacrifice a Supreme Court nomination -- even let the nomination go down in flames and wind up having to accept another Kennedy to get someone confirmed, in order to take this chance to push the Bush message out in the most dramatic way possible.
That's why he'll nominate Gonzales to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Because even if the nomination fails -- Bush tried. In fact, it might even be better if it does fail......that way he gets credit in the Hispanic community, and then he gets to go back and nominate as his second choice someone who, except for Karl Rove's election calculus, would have been his first choice -- a "moderate" Chamber-of-Commerce Republican, an "economic conservative" who'll wind up voting like Kennedy or O'Connor.
You game on that bet?
They have several kinds of step-ladder, don't they?
Axes, too.
Clearly.
I am being serious, and part of being serious is acknowledging what I personally believe, but also what simply is, even if I don't prefer the morality of it.
You're willing to profit off something you're morally opposed to? Ah, the French! Liberte, Egalite, Perversite.
I am a real estate investor looking to maximize profit, I objectively view what the US Supreme Court did as making it easier to do land business in America
ALL homeowners are real estate investors, mon ami. I bought my home as an investment, too. But I can't maximize my profit now. Some wealthy developer doesn't want to pay me what my property is worth to me, or what I know it's worth to the developer? No problem! Get the government to invoke eminent domain, and force me to sell out for what it determines to be "just compensation".
How Orwellian! (All real estate investors are equal; but some are more equal than others.) Again I say, Liberte, Egalite, Perversite.
I'm half French (maternal side) by the way. /shudder.
"You're willing to profit off something you're morally opposed to? Ah, the French! Liberte, Egalite, Perversite."
As are you, I expect, if you own any broadly-based mutual funds which hold shares in the large corporations who induce localities to use eminent domain for their expansions.
Indeed, most banks in which people have their interest-bearing accounts lend to developers.
These lines are more attenuated, certainly, than my direct work for developers and direct investment in real estate projects. But yet you do profit from these same things yourself if you invest in mutual funds or have your money in an interest-bearing bank account.
The price of moral purity in an interlocked world is too high for most to bear.
Yup, I'm in. Here's my prediction. It'll be Emilio Garza or Miguel Estrada. I'm leaning toward Garza because even though he's written very critically on Roe, he's a Marine which means he'll be tough to demonize and he'll have steel balls.
Is asserting hate a learned or hereditary trait of the left?
"One question before we part company.
Is asserting hate a learned or hereditary trait of the left?"
I have no idea.
I have asserted no hate.
Nor am I "of the left".
Reel the Supreme Court in HOW?
That is the problem.
"We defeated communism only to become communists."
Here is a good question for ya...
Were we ever really enemies of communism?, or just victims of clever propaganda?
Most of the communist machine has been running in America for nearly 100 years now. No one alive knows what being "American" is really like, not to mention that nither political party has made an effort to reverse the process or openly admit that it was happening in the first place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.