Do liberal Supreme court justices, have the right to seize your property? Look at the Justices who Approve .?

Question

This? The four liberal justices:
1 Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
2 John Paul Stevens.
3 David Souter.
4Stephen Breyer.
These all approved of eminent Domain. These are the liberals on the supreme court. Only one vote is left to get a majority. Who was it???? Do you support eminent domain???

Come on chicken shits.

Mark D - You are correct about the chicken **** comments, I just wanted the liberals to come, and defend their Justices. I did not get that, of course.

Mark D - I have no ax to grind with most of what you say, but is it not interesting that all the liberals, support the seizure of private property? Anthony Kennedy, or The now retired Sandra Day O'conner, being a swing vote, does not excuse the liberals, Power grab for possessions. All the conservatives opposed this.If the government is free to grab whatever it deems worthy of grabbing, where does this leave the average American? Especially, when this abuse is extended, for the purpose of creating more tax revenue?

As usual, You are right, RLP.

Answer 1

Florida voters just voted down eminent domain in November. Good job.
A reminder, when voting time rolls around, don't just mark yes on retaining judges, etc. just because you have never heard of them creating a controversy. Do your homework and find out if a Republican or Democrat nominated them. With a little homework on the internet, you can find out whether judges are conservative or liberal, etc.
Conservative judges believe in following the Constitution as written by forefathers, etc.
Liberal judges often legislate or make laws by using their own interpretation of the Constitution. REMEMBER the 3 branches of power? Judicial is NOT the branch for making laws!

Answer 2

I believe the fifth Justice who voted for the Kelo decision was Justice Anthony Kennedy. He is a moderate who leans rightward more often than not. He is also respsonsible for the Bush v. Gore decision, which is probably the worst atrocity ever committed by the Court.

The SC exercised judicial restraint in the Kelo decision. The Court upheld the actions which had been authorized by legislation passed by a democratically elected body. You can complain if you want to about the SC exercising TOO MUCH restraint -- you can say that the SC failed to uphold the Constitutional rights of property owners. A whole lot of people are saying that. Join the chorus.

But to exercise judicial restraint means that the SC did not play the trump card. As Robert Bork has said, constitutional law is the trump card of American politics. Once the Constitution has been invoked to prohibit legislatures (or voters) from doing certain things, then the legislatures (and voters) have become dis-empowered. The opposite course of action -- restraint -- allows the voters and the legislatures to change their course of action. And it appears that they are doing just that.

Do I support eminent domain? Of course I do. The government can seize property so long as they provide the property owner with "just compensation." The issue in Kelo was not whether or not the property owners had been justly compensated. The question was who gets to seize property/provide compensation. Was the SC right in Kelo? Maybe, maybe not. But the issues in Kelo are still in the hands of the voters and legislatures.

Recognize the political opportunities that are still available. Don't ask the SC to be a solver of all problems. Thomas Jefferson urged people to not rely on the judicial branch to solve all problems.

"There is not, under our Constitution, a judicial remedy for every political mischief. In a democratic society like ours, relief must come through an aroused popular conscience that sears the conscience of the people's representatives." -- Justice Frankfurter, dissenting opinion in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 270 (1962).
~~~~
And you are not going to persuade ANYBODY by calling people chickens---s!
~~~~

Thanks, stev. Now I can see that I won't be persuaded by you either.
I wish it were true that conservative judges always follow the original understanding of the Constitution. But it just isn't true. The way the Justices split in Kelo is the exact same way they had split in the Term Limits case back in the middle of the 1990s: Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer in the majority and Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justices O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas in dissent. Both the majority and the dissent cared about striving to determine the Framer's original intent and Justice Steven's opinion for the majority was more persuasive at proving what the Framer's intended than Justice Thomas' dissent.
~~~~
And now I think I've corrected every typo, misspelling, and bad grammar that I originally used.

Answer 3

The worst part of it is 2 of these were appointed by Republicans. Justice Kennedy was the fifth that voted for Kilo. It is disgusting what has gone on here.

Remember the uproar when Bush nominated Harriet Myers? The conservative blew their top. What we need is conservatives to limit what the courts can and cannot rule on. Then we need to start impeaching judges.

We have 4 originalists on now. 1 more and it is over.

Remember, the Democrats are the ones who brought up the filibuster for the first time ever on a judicial nominee. They are required to have an up or down vote. How in the world can Democrats justify that they defend the Constitution when they do this? Oh, wait, the liberal media offers a free pass.

Answer 4

to the one said liberals dont want to take over everything BS. Liberals believe in larger government meaning the government can can do anything they want including taking property for public and private use. I'm sorry but increasing tax base is not public use. if it is not for a park school or road or anything like that is is flat out stealing! And most of the dems are liberals we need more conservatives and libertarions on the supreme court, they also need to quit legislating from the bench

Answer 5

Eminent domain is suppose to only apply to property needed for public use
...not to give Walmart some cheap property.
....How this slipped thru our courts I don't know, fortunately Georgia has a law prohibiting this and I recommend every state follow suit.

...Hey, we do not live is Russian last I looked!!!
...Walmart can get property the old fashion way, "make an acceptable offer"!!!

Answer 6

It is sad that you own property for many years and these judges all it to be snached away with no way to fight back!!!

And nobdy has any right to take what is yours!!!
I do not support it and it looks as if the liberals are the corprate "backscratchers"now!!!

Answer 7

i am a liberal and i do not believe in imminent domain, but you are confusing the word liberal with democrat. Democrats want the national government to be in control of more things so they naturally would support this, whilst liberals do not necessarily agree with the democrats on everything.

Answer 8

NO one has the right to seize private property!!

Answer 9

Liberals do not have the right to seize property nor do they have the right to kill babies but they seem to want to do both with similar ease.

Answer 10

They approved it because there was no law on the books to disapprove it. That is up to congress to fix. Let's face it, you're just another liberal basher trying to look for an excuse.