Comments on: Friday Open Thread: The New London Ruling

By: Marblex

Marblex — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:36:04 +0000

This is the Lochner decision of the 21st Century. Problem is, philosopher kings don’t live in the real world where corrupt local officials are easily swayed by 30 pieces of silver.

By: Phoenician in a time of Romans

Phoenician in a time of Romans — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:04:21 +0000

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — attributed to Benito Mussolini

“If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck
of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,” — George W Bush.

By: djw

djw — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 07:45:00 +0000

Bad policy, I agree. But the majority was correct: SCOTUS has no business determining what specific actions do and do not constitute a legitimate “public purpose.” I wish that there were a way BS corporate welfare schemes that screw over poor people were unconstitutional, but they’re not…

By: Marblex

Marblex — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:39:55 +0000

Here’s another thing…say you’re retired. You’ve paid off your home. Your get kicked out of it because some millionaire wants to put a golf course where your neighborhood used to be.

What are you supposed to do now? I don’t know of too many banks that make loans to retirees. Do you?

By: Oh, FTLOG

Oh, FTLOG — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:08:44 +0000

Too bad Texas has gone to the wingnuts, because I, being a true and semi-proud Texan, think there needs to be a Wal-Mart in a certain area of Crawford, TX. I think that’d be a dandy use of eminent domain. As soon as the good people of this state come to their senses (and we will!), I think that should be first on the agenda.

Ann Richards for Governor….again!!

By: Brad R.

Brad R. — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:40:46 +0000

Consider that the ruling essentially follows precedent and locates eminent domain decisions at the municipal and state level. Furthermore, the decision does not override, and does not prevent, the enactment of legislation to restrict eminent domain. The Court’s decision was that the Constitution does not forbid the New London action.

Fair enough. I think the solution is to get the legislature in gear to define the proper uses for eminent domain.

By: moonbiter

moonbiter — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:14:56 +0000

Uh, I spelled “dead” that way on purpose. Really.

By: moonbiter

moonbiter — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:13:46 +0000

Maybe I should start printing up bumper stickers that read “You can have my property when you pry it from my cold, ded fingers.” Gotta be forward-thinking, here.

By: Linnaeus

Linnaeus — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:03:58 +0000

We’re all sympathetic to the plaintiffs in this case, but they also served as a cover for what their right-wing lawyers really wanted, which was a far-reaching ruling bringing down eminent domain as far as they could. That’s judicial activism.

By: Gavin M.

Gavin M. — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 12:46:56 +0000

Sadly, no! has 138 readers you moran.

So we’re bigger than Crooked Timber?

By: gus

gus — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 12:03:28 +0000

Sadly, no! has 138 readers you moran.

By: Brad R.

Brad R. — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 11:36:45 +0000

Then I find out that those three evil bastards voted on the correct side of something for once!

OK so I’m not crazy. Good to know :-)

By: GuinnessGuy

GuinnessGuy — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:45:13 +0000

This does suck- and I HATE agreeing with those states-rights assholes.
If you believe in a free market, then this is shit- it should be between the developer and resident. But it’s so much easier for the corps to get the governments to do their bitchwork for cheap. Bastards…

By: Marq

Marq — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:32:00 +0000

GAAH!

When I first read about this ruling, I assumed the majority consisted of Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and a couple of pick-up votes from the others. Then I find out that those three evil bastards voted on the correct side of something for once! Cripes! Couldn’t they have shown this modicum of sense during the Bush-Gore decision? Jeebus.

By: Brad R.

Brad R. — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 06:20:59 +0000

You’re not supposed to be writing it — duh!

I think it’s a shitty use of eminent domain- that doesn’t sound so wingnutty to me.

By: Seb

Seb — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 06:04:25 +0000

It’s Friday. I can’t muster the mental energy for substantive wingnuttery today :-)

You’re not supposed to be writing it — duh!

By: Gavin M.

Gavin M. — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 05:32:34 +0000

Well, there’s always Friday cat blogging.

[evil Vincent Price laughter]

By: Brad R.

Brad R. — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 05:27:54 +0000

Are we doing open threads now? I thought that was for sites with, you know, more than 38 readers.

It’s Friday. I can’t muster the mental energy for substantive wingnuttery today :-)

By: Brad R.

Brad R. — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 05:27:00 +0000

I think it should be between the developer and the property owner. If the developer wants the property bad enough, he just pays a shitload of money to the owner to vacate. But instead they pay the city a shitload to make the owner vacate. How fucking stupid.

Yeah. And the definition of what is in the “public interest” is always prickly. Building a Wal-Mart could be considered “in the public interest” under the vagueness of the ruling.

(And yes, I HATE, HATE, HATE agreeing with Scalia and Thomas, so I normally just cite O’Connor.)

By: Gavin M.

Gavin M. — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 05:25:34 +0000

Are we doing open threads now? I thought that was for sites with, you know, more than 38 readers.