SECOND SUPREME FACES EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION
Gabu:
Well, obviously we don't want judges to make blatantly unconstitutional rulings because they don't fear the consequences of doing so. However, we also don't want judges to make blatantly unconstitutional rulings because they fear the consequences of not doing so, as in Emsworth's example.
Basically, I feel that if a judge is affected in a legitimate way by a ruling that he or she makes, that's perfectly normal and is to be expected, but that we should not go out and blatantly punish a judge for a ruling that we didn't like, as is obviously the case here. The judiciary should not be afraid to make an objective ruling on something because they fear retribution for having made an unpopular decision. If the judiciary can be blatantly threatened and strongarmed into doing what other people want them to do, we might as well not even have a judiciary.
muon2:
This propsal for Breyer's property misses the point of the decision. If the acquisition is to create a park, then it falls under "public use" as acceted by all nine Justices. At least in Souter's case the proposed taking was for the economic development of a hotel which is the subject of the Kelo decision.
David S:
Personally I believe the court was wrong in the Kelo v. New London decision. But wether you believe it was right or wrong its hard to argue that whats good for the goose is not good for the gander.
AkSaber:
Quote from: David S on July 27, 2005, 08:30:04 PM
Personally I believe the court was wrong in the Kelo v. New London decision. But wether you believe it was right or wrong its hard to argue that whats good for the goose is not good for the gander.
^^^^^ Great statement!! :)
A18:
So long as just compensation is provided, private property can be taken.
It is impossible for Congress to, as a valid exercise of its powers, take property for anything but public use. However, this is not the case with the states.
The Constitution does not limit takings to public use, it simply acknowledged the nature of the federal government. To apply the fifth amendment to the states, we must simply ignore the word 'public,' just as we do 'Congress' when interpreting the first amendment. That is the rational way to do things.
The irrational way is to keep the word public. In that case, the states can take private property for commercial use without just compensation.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page