Supreme Court overstepping their boundaries

[Prudence]

But wait, there's more!

Today, the illustrious court ruled that cities can seize homes for private development (eminent domain).

See article here.

So, if the city will get more tax revenue from a shopping mall than from your home, prepare to move! And of course you'll be entitled to "just compensation" -- which will bear no resemblance to the actual market value of your home. No need for a public use, no. Developer wants cheap land? Condemn some homes!
Developer gets a break, city gets increased revenue, and one more American dream gets snuffed out.

And I swear, if I side with J. Thomas one more time....

Seriously, some days I just want to cry. I care too much about this country and I've invested too much of myself in achieving that ellusive American dream to kowtow to the trampling of individual rights.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by Prudence

But wait, there's more!

And it just gets worse.

New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation.

[Ghoulish Delight]

On the plus side, this means cities have motivation to keep property taxes low.

[scaeagles]

That ruling is beyind horrid. And scary. We have major problems with that around Phoenix - when the Bank One Ballpark was constructed with public funds (which pisses me off as well, but that's another story), there were people that did not want to sell their property, including one woman who was (can't remember her exact age) over 60 and had lived in this particular home since birth, so they had the property condemned.

So now, the government can sieze property if it is deemed in the best economic interests of the community, and private property rights be damned.

Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, and (surprisingly to me) Kennedy should be ashamed. This is the very definition of fascism, being that big developers can team up with the government to take whatever the hell they want from the little guy. Good lord I hope no one ever wants my property for a mall.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, and (surprisingly to me) Kennedy should be ashamed. This is the very definition of fascism, being that big developers can team up with the government to take whatever the hell they want from the little guy. Good lord I hope no one ever wants my property for a mall.

Did you read O'Connor's dissent? If she wasn't nearly as old as the head cheese, I'd swear she was gunning for his chair. Maybe she is anyhow...

[scaeagles]

Another "ruling" (actually, a combination of two) that simply astounds me is what they have to say about the 10 commandments being displayed on public property and in court houses. Rule one way or the other, but make a consistent ruling.

Apparently, on public property is OK, but in a courthouse, unless inside the Supreme Court chamber itself, is not OK. The court seems to expect to be able to discover the reason and motivation behind the display. If the display is there because it is a historical document, fine. If the display is there because of a representation of specific religious beliefs, then not fine. Is not a document simply a document and the reader reads into the words what they choose in terms of meaning? How can the court claim to know the intent? So the intent in the Supreme Court building is not religious, so they can keep theirs, but in Tennessee (or Texas - I keep confusing the two cases) it is for religious purposes, so it is not OK?

This court is making some rulings that are worrisome to me. Honestly, I could see arguments on both sides of the ten commandments, so a ruling either way would not have been shocking to me. But to rule as they did......I simply do not understand it.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Another "ruling" (actually, a combination of two) that simply astounds me is what they have to say about the 10 commandments being displayed on public property and in court houses. Rule one way or the other, but make a consistent ruling.

I think that was Scalia's position. Can't really recall at the moment. I haven't read that decision because that was basically the topic for our law review write-on entry -- the one I read GOBS of case law for and formulated an opinion on and then had surgery and didn't feel like actually writing up. (Oh well. Moot court sounds like more fun anyhow.)

My impression, however, is that this will now help NOT AT ALL sort out an extremely confusing area of case law. I'm sure I didn't read every decision on the subject, but the theme of those I did read was no one (or not enough someone's to make a majority) has the balls to pick a position and say "screw it" to the other side.

Now, I actually wouldn't have complained if they'd said "yes" in some public displays and "no" in all courtrooms (including theirs.) That, to me, would have been more consistent. But excepting their own display seems, to use the technical term, bogus.

(Digression: the hypo we were to write on for the competition involved a town that was displaying, in city hall, as part of a larger display of artifacts from the town's original settlers, a copy of the 10 commandments that had belonged to the town's founder. But then again, I think it's relatively easy to draw a distinction between "historical display of relics of the lives and times of our collective ancestors" and "icon specific to certain religion(s) prominently displayed in the court of law where people are already on edge and the community should really be trying to at least pretend to be impartial.")

[Ghoulish Delight]

re: 10 Commandments.

I almost see where they were going. It's pretty tricky. Here are a couple extreme examples to illustrate the point.

Case 1: A courthouse erects a display of the 10 Commandments in the lobby with a plaque next to it reading, "The Word of God", complete with a speech at the unveiling about the importance of God and prayer.

Case 2: A well respected judge who sat on the bench at a courthouse for many many years dies, and as a tribute, some of his personal belongings, including an ornately framed copy of the 10 Commandments, are put on display at the courthouse.

I think most would agree that there is a clear distinction between these two cases. And I think most would agree that the first steps well over the line, while the second comes nowhere near it. So that's where things become complicated. There seem to clearly be appropriate displays and inappropriate displays. And, since the content of the 10 Commandments was influential to the founding of this country, it is difficult to just say, "nope, you can't have it." However, my feeling is, because not all cases (probably very few cases) are as clear-cut as my hypotheticals, and the only method for distinguishing them is a subjective analysis of motivation (aka, mindreading), an outright ban from public areas of government institutions should be the only solution. It may not be ideal, but if apparant motivation is the only test, then it's too easy to get around that just by putting on the right show.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

However, my feeling is, because not all cases (probably very few cases) are as clear-cut as my hypotheticals, and the only method for distinguishing them is a subjective analysis of motivation (aka, mindreading), an outright ban from public areas of government institutions should be the only solution. It may not be ideal, but if apparant motivation is the only test, then it's too easy to get around that just by putting on the right show.

I think that's a cop-out and the sort of thinking that has school zero-tolerance policies sending kids home for making "guns" out of their fingers on the playground.

Most cases ARE clear-cut and you'll never ever hear about them. You only hear about the ones that push the boundaries, which makes them seem more prolific than they are.

And to top it off, subjective tests are used throughout the legal system. Even the "objective" tests are subjective. ("Reasonable person" standard, anyone?)

[mousepod]

I'd like to see the Ten Commandments on display in Tennessee or Texas... in the original Hebrew.