Do you agree with the liberal judges that think that the government can take your land?

Question

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html

Kennedy aside, the other four are known as "the liberal four".

Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer

This is a situation that takes land away from poor people so shopping centers and such can be built. Why are liberals not against this?

Originally, it started during the Eisenhower administration. The intent however was to use it to help create the national highway system that we have today.

Are you able to stick to the question, or do you have to go to a talking point?

Oh, I did read about the issue. Feel free to read it in the Washington Post link that I included.

2 of the judges were appointed by Clinton.

That's my point, granny. The poor are not being properly compensated.

Doctor Watson, you show little knowledge of the true nature of the Supreme Court. There are 4 bona fide liberal judges and 4 truly conservative judges. Justice Kennedy, the remaining judge, was recently called "the swing voter" of the court. Sounds pretty balanced to me. All four liberal judges voted in favor of eminent domain, while the four conservative judges were opposed. Is that clear enough for you?

Answer 1

Liberal judges (which differ than politcal liberals) belive that the Constitution is a living, breathing document. They believe that they can interpret it and make new law. The problem is that is not their job and the legislature is responsible for new law, because they are accountable throught the election process.

Thank God President Bush has put 2 originalist judges on the Supreme Court. He should get 1 or 2 more before he is gone. Then we can get our country back. Liberals hate the fact that there is nothing they can do.

I am paraphrasing what he said, but Chief Justice John Roberts nailed it during his conifrmation hearings. A liberal Senator asked him (either Durbin or Schumer) if he would take the side of the little guy. His response was depends on the Constitution. If the Constitution says he should take the side of the little guy, then fine. If the Constitution says he should take the side of the company, then fine. The question exposes liberal politicans for what they are: anti-capitalists and anti-Constitution.

Answer 2

It is not 'liberal' judges who take anything away from anybody. It is the majority of judges on the court voting on a specific issue. And because the US Supreme Court is more conservative than liberal, it is the voice of conservatives who win out.

Taking land from the poor so that the already wealthy can benefit is something a conservative court would do, not a liberal court.

Answer 3

I do not agree with this interpretation of the right of emminent domain. It follows with so many other 'upside down' issues we have going on in this country now days.

It has been characterized as our moral compass being off. And I believe that for a pretty generalized statement, it is a good one. Looking at our stances on aids, abortion, immigration, Christianity vs. other religions, same sex marriages, etc. etc.

We have so many people in the country that 'just don't get it'.

I blame a lot of it on a lack of education. Too many things that used to be taught to elementary through high school students have been replaced by politically correct rubbish that has little or no relevance to what made this country great, or got mankind to where we are today.

Answer 4

The Constitution allows taking with just compensation. The problem is that the liberal, activists judges now allow taking by eminent domain for a third party. In other words, a city may take your property to allow a developer to erect a mall.

Answer 5

The judges were wrong. Besides, taking someone's property in favor of a 3rd party is very illiberal.

Congress should propose an eminent domain amendment to the constitution which would greatly limit the power of the gov't to confiscate land.

Answer 6

In the first place, these "liberal" justices were appointed by CONSERVATIVE, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS. Secondly, it is no secret that conservatives are all about giving to the rich and taking from the poor. The last land grab I heard about and decided in the Supreme Court involved $1 mil+ homes and property, not poor people. You can bet they will get justly compensated for it tho. In poor communities, this stuff goes on everyday and they are almost never justly compensated. Do some homework.

Answer 7

No!

I believe it is a direct violation of the constitution.

There is a very imformative post by Volokh that you should read as it pertains to the economics of the Kelo case.

Answer 8

I agree with the conservative judges that the goverment may, by right of emminent domain, revoke ownership of land from people, if they pay them what it is worth. This is true in almost all countries.

Answer 9

I've got a rifle that says , "NOT WITHOUT FAIR PAYMENT " !

The whole idea is to increase the tax base , not to create jobs or anything else .
Liberal Mayors taxed business and industry out and now they need a new tax base .

Answer 10

Yes, Eminent domain has been around for years and is necessary in some cases. They have to pay you for it, don't make it sound so glib. It's one of those "risks" that you hear about when investing.

Dude, you should post the name of the person you are responding to. It makes your rant a lot easier to follow.