Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SouthJersey7

Eminent Domain ruling backfires for Justice Souter

Recommended Posts


Well at least it happened to one of them. Unfortunately this ruling means a lot of poor people whose only asset is their land, are going to lose out to rich developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Souter richly deserves this. That turncoat lied to GHW Bush to get on the court and then voted with all his leftist buddies once he got on there. And that eminent domain decision was simply awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see if I get you right, gator, you think its a liberal idea to allow corporations to seize land of private individuals to use for development? That is a republican idea if ever I've heard one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see if I get you right, gator, you think its a liberal idea to allow corporations to seize land of private individuals to use for development? That is a republican idea if ever I've heard one.

Then why did all the liberal Justices on the Supreme Court vote in favor of the taking? First of all, corporations are not all Republican supporters and secondly liberals tend to favor the strengthening of government at the expense of the rights of the people. This has been the pattern of the Supreme Court and the Fed Govt since the 1930s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why did all the liberal Justices on the Supreme Court vote in favor of the taking?  First of all, corporations are not all Republican supporters and secondly liberals tend to favor the strengthening of government at the expense of the rights of the people.  This has been the pattern of the Supreme Court and the Fed Govt since the 1930s.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can anyone say PATRIOT Act? Which Republicans overhelmingly voted for again this week as parts of the act will expire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Indeed the Patriot Act does restrict the rights of the common man. However, like it or not, this is wartime, and during ewartime, a President is generally expected to assume tighter control over his responsibilities.

--Lincoln, for example, removed the writ of habaeus corpus during the Civil War.

--Wilson passed the Alien and Espionage Acts during WWI.

--Several thousand Japanese were moved to "Work Camps" during WWII. (A bit too extreme of a measure to prevent Japanese spying if you ask me, thankfully, we aren't doing this to the group under suspicion in this war, Arabs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind certain parts of the PATRIOT Act as long as they are temporary, but the White House is demanding that it should be permanent.

Because of the removal of the writ of habaeus corpus during Lincoln, in part Congress changed the size of the Supreme Court a few times, ranging from eleven Justices to eight Justices during the 1860s.

During WWII, FDR also tried to increase the size of the Court to fifteen Justices, but Congress declined. Some see changing the size of the Court during wartime may make the President's agenda go easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do have a point there. I support the act as a temporary measure, but making the act permanent would be ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shawn&Zae: What part of the Patriot Act specifically do you object to? As for its duration, I think they would set an expiration date if we knew when the threat would pass. Certainly if it becomes unnecessary, it can be repealed.

As to the Supreme Court, you obviously are not schooled in Constitutional Law. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has used the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to justify federal regulation of almost every facet of our lives. And this regulation is not designed to protect us from being blown up, like the Patriot Act is. Add to this the fact that the Supreme Court has been used to enact almost every portion of the liberal agenda which they could not achieve through democratic means because the people do not support this agenda. This is why the Dems are so hot and bothered about Bush and the Courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the liberal movement in the Supreme Court of the 30s to the 70s helped paved what the US is now, a society that respect individual rights. If the Warren or Burger Courts were more conservative in those days, we wouldn't have the Miranda rights or our rights to an attorney. Hell, we probably still having race relations problems without Brown vs. Board. The 1930s, the liberals on the Court supported the majority of the New Deal legislations, with the conservatives supporting state rights, which the FDR violated intrastate commerce. What Democrats don't like is that the conservatives are bringing up social and religion issues. For separation of state and church, conservatives are taunting the public with religious values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, we probably still having race relations problems without Brown vs. Board.

Aren't we still having race relations problems, even if they aren't as big as they were in the 1950's and 60's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shawn: The problem with what you said was, none of these "rights" are actually contained in the Constitution and were completely made up by activist Judges. People are far more likely to respect laws which are democratically enacted than those which are foisted upon us by the Courts.

As to the civil rights era, while the Court did play a role in Brown, the US Congress also passed many laws involving voting rights, fair housing and other anti-discrimination measures. So, these were in fact enacted by democratically elected congressmen rather than unelected and unaccountable judges.

As for "separation of church and state" this language is found nowhere in the Constitution. The basic problem with what you said is that judges should not be making liberal policy (or any other policy for that matter). In a democratic republic like the United States, these decisions should be left to the people through their elected representatives. Otherwise we simply have a dictatorship of the judiciary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I understand what you are saying, yes those rights are not explicitly stated, but the Supreme Court do have the right to interpret what they want and that's their duties. The Constitution is 200 something years old document that some parts are outdated by today's standard. So I guess you would go against judicial review because that wasn't in the Constitution.

Brown vs. Board was in 1954, the civil rights era didn't get big until the 60s, those legislations happened because Brown vs. Board played an important role.

But if everyone in all three branches were all to become constitutionalists, and strictly stick to the Constitution without implications, the current form of the government would fail. The committee system, party affiliation, judicial review weren't mention, where would our government be now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.