BS: such compassion

Subject: BS: such compassion
From: John Hardly
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 09:16 AM

"They trample on the heads of the poor
       as upon the dust of the ground
       and deny justice to the oppressed."

The compassionate government that, in concert with the Supreme Court (liberals), seized the properties of the poor residents of New London, CT, to give it to the wealthy Pfizer Corporation, are now demanding 5 years of back rent from those poor (adding up to $100,000+ - an insurmountable amount for already poor people), as well as giving them only the already deflated yr2000 value of their properties.

Compassionate Liberalism at work.

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: Janie
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 11:57 AM

Source?

J.

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 12:21 PM

WHich Supreme Court liberals, John? Seems to me you are grossly redefining the term in order to fuel a rant, here. What's "liberal" about these actions in support of a large corporation?

What IS your definition of the term "liberal" these days?

Is it the same as it was eight years ago?


A

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: John Hardly
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 12:43 PM

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion.

O'Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. Thomas, J.,

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 12:57 PM

Source for the bit about the back rent, please?

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 01:13 PM

Amos, John's probably read this for his take on liberals: click here.

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 01:41 PM

Ok. I looked it up myself.

First of all, the Supreme Court decision that John cites does not break any new legal ground. All the Court did was to uphold precedents that were established a long time ago. One example of this practice would be the cases in which urban renewal projects resulted in the confiscation (for private development) of the homes of many urban poor a few decades ago.

Secondly, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the back rent issue. In fact, no court has. The "New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal" is the entity that is talking about charging back rent. They are saying they plan to sue for the money. If and when they do, a court decision will determine whether or not they have any grounds to charge back rent.

According to one article I read on this issue, the NLDC agreed in a pre-trial agreement to not charge rent retroactively in exchange for the residents' agreement for a hastened trial schedule. If there is a record of this agreement, I suspect the NLDC will not get very far with its suit.

This issue was not created by the Supreme Court. It is a legislative issue, and if people have a problem with the legislation, they should lobby Congress to do something about it.

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: John Hardly
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 02:01 PM

I am used to condescension here on the mudcat, but, Kat, never before from you.

By what tortured logic can one look at the list of the Justices and how they voted and not see the ideological divide?

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 02:04 PM

"Compassionate Liberalism", John? Is that anything like a 'compassionate conservative"?

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 02:17 PM

The Justices who made that decision made it out of compassion. They were aware of the fact that homes were already being confiscated from the poorest of the poor for private development (for many years).

All the "Liberal" members of the Supreme Court did was to make that practice more even-handed, ensuring that everyone would be affected equally, rather than just the poorest of the poor. That was a good and compassionate ruling, in my opinion. The Supreme Court's decision just gave a bigger incentive for the people who are in a better position to influence congress to get off their collective butts and do something to correct the situation.

Appealing to people's sense of enlightened self-interest is the best way to motivate them to do what is right.

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 02:24 PM

The "Conservative" members, on the other hand, would have preferred to see only the poorest of the poor having their homes confiscated for private development. Apparently, they only have compassion for people who are not poor.

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: John Hardly
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 02:40 PM

tried to find a local an account as possible

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: KateG
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 02:50 PM

Actually, this seens to be an issue which has liberals and conservatives in complete agreement. Liberals disapprove of the ruling because it allows wealthy corporations to displace poor families, conservatives because it allows the government to take from private individuals.

However, CarolC is right, the Supreme court was ruling on the constitutionality of the principle of "eminant domain" based on current law and precedent, not on its morality.

I think that in the wake of this decision we will find a raft of legislation defining "public benefit" more stringently, since eminant domain is a thorny concept and one that is highly vulnerable to abuse. And speaking historically, even when projects clearly benefitted large numbers of people, the initial impact of the project was more often felt by poor people than by the wealthy. For example, when the highway systems were built through urban area they were often routed through poor neighborhoods, while wealthy ones were relatively undisturbed (Robert Moses was famous for this in NYC).

But please, let's not demonize liberals, or conservatives for that matter. ALL solutions have unintended consequences, and one of the most valuable contributions of the "loyal opposition" is to help bring them to light before it is too late. Also, liberal is not a synonym for socialist or Democrat. Time was, when being concerned for the welfare of one's fellow man, particularly those less fortunate than oneself, was called "Christian." (With no respect intended here for any of the world's other great religions, many of which share that ideal.)

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: John Hardly
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 03:15 PM

The "drift" from initial interpretations of "eminent domain" has been from confiscation for public use (highways, waterways, etc) to confiscation for private use (as is the case in New London). It is not an entirely new interpretation -- it has been ruled like this before.

But it wouldn't have even been brought before the Supreme Court had there not been substance, something new, something different about this case. On that basis alone, the court was perfectly capable of ruling in favor of the poor. It was not compelled to interpret according to previous precedent.

And the notion that it was a mercy ruling -- trying to make it fair to the losers who had preceded the litigants -- is illogical. By what logic would a court rule against the poor, presumably for the previously swindled poor, when by that very ruling, they would be setting future precedent (ironically, the only basis upon which they claimed justification for this ruling) for the confiscation of anyone else's propert to give to any other private individual.

And the reason it is "liberal" as opposed to conservative, is that it does concretely illustrate the ideological divide -- the left is far more inclined to expand governmental property "rights" (and the subsequent taxes that can be exacted from the confiscation), and the conservative is far more likely to rule in favor of private property ownership.

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 03:29 PM

Well, John, I dunno when you started blending the meanings of liberal and socialist -- probably in one of your Anne Coulter phases -- but I can assure you that this liberal, anyway, does not approve of government intercession in depriving anyone of their homes to benefit another private entity, corporate or individual. Ideology, smideology -- it just ain't right action or just action. IF these guys were wearing fatiques instead of suits and ties, they'd be scorned as marauders, or worse.

A

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 03:31 PM

Amos,

Nice to know who you agree with.

From above:

"Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion.

O'Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., "

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: John Hardly
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 03:40 PM

Ann Coulter?

I know this is incredible, but I've never read her. Nor have I perused the pages of the book that Kat condescendingly connected me with.

Argue with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ME<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< , Amos. I didn't see Ann Coulter log onto the mudcat.


I can't answer any more succinctly than BB already did, above.

You may distance yourself from the ruling, but Ginsberg, et al are not liberal?

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 03:50 PM

The "drift" from initial interpretations of "eminent domain" has been from confiscation for public use (highways, waterways, etc) to confiscation for private use (as is the case in New London).

This is not true. That is how the media is spinning it, but it has no basis in fact.

Eminent domain has been used to confiscate private property for private use for decades. This is nothing new. The fact that people are lying to you and telling you otherwise should give you an idea about their true motives, which are not in any way related to "compassion".

All the Supreme Court did was to apply what has been affecting only the poorest of the poor up until now, to everyone, regardless of socio-economic status. The reason some people are only just now starting to complain about it is because for the first time, it can affect them, and not just the poorest of the poor, who never have much of a voice in matters of this sort.

John, if you are genuine in wanting to address this issue from the perspective of what is compassionate, you will also be concerned with the plight of the poor people who have been losing their homes through eminent domain to private developers for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 03:55 PM

BTW, according to the arguments as they were being presented to the Supreme Court, what is different in this case is simply the socio-economic status of the neighborhood in question.

In the past, the term "urban blight" was applied to poor neighborhoods as a way of rationalizing the confiscation of people's homes for private development. In this case, they couldn't use "urban blight" as justification because the neighborhoods weren't poor enough. And that is the only difference between this case and the many cases that came before it.

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 06:48 PM

Stevens, J Appointed by Gerald Ford
Kennedy Appointed by Reagan
Souter Appointed by George HW Bush
Ginsburg Appointed by Clinton
Breyer, JJ. Appointed by Clinton

O'Connor Appointed by Reagan
Rehnquist Appointed by Reagan
Scalia Appointed by Reagan
Thomas Appointed by GHW Bush

One can hardly blame the so called "liberals" for this one, amigo.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 07:33 PM

"All the Court did was to uphold precedents that were established a long time ago." More or less how they dealt with the issue of slavery...

The whole idea of having a politically appointed and politically skewed Supreme Court seems pretty unsavoury.

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 08:20 PM

Even if they had ruled against this one, McGrath, it wouldn't have changed the practice with regard to the poorest neighborhoods where the use of the label "urban blight" can still be used to confiscate private property for private developement.

The only way to change that practice is through legislation, and that's not going to happen unless people who are much more empowered than this country's poorest citizens, perceive their own property to be at risk. This is why the poorest of the poor have been having their homes confiscated for private development and John Hardley and most other people didn't even know it. Because very few people really care about the poorest people in this country.

I agree with the court's decision in this case. There shouldn't be a different standard for different socio-economic classes of people in this country. And now that the less poor are seeing their own properties put at risk, they can work hard to lobby congress to make legislation that is fair for everyone. Congress tends to listen to people with money, and to not listen to those without.

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 06:10 AM

The whole idea of having a politically appointed and politically skewed Supreme Court seems pretty unsavoury.

Lord Lane's obituary in the paper a few days ago- he was considered a 'lberal' judge, but just happened to fall into line when given a political job in the Birmingham 6 case.

I don't think the Old Boys' network works any better than overt political stitch up.

From Wikipedia:

In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that just compensation be paid when the power of eminent domain is used, and requires that "public use" of the property be demonstrated. Over the years the definition of "public use" has expanded to include economic development plans which use eminent domain seizures to enable commercial development for the purpose of generating more tax revenue for the local government. [1] Critics contend this perverts the intent of eminent domain law and tramples personal property rights.

In 1981, in Michigan, the Supreme Court of Michigan, building on the precedent set by Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) [2], permitted the neighborhood of Poletown to be taken in order to build a General Motors plant. Courts in other states relied on this decision, which was overturned in 2004 [3], as precedent. This expansion of the definition was argued before the United States Supreme Court in February 2005 [4], in Kelo v. New London [5]. In June 2005, the Supreme Court issued their decision in favor of New London, in a narrow 5-4 ruling—a decision that gives local governments wide latitude to decide when a seizure is for "public purposes," including economic development. The court hinted, however, that states could pass laws limiting the purposes for which eminent domain could be used. The controversial ruling sparked a backlash among citizens, and several states either have or are in the process of passing laws limiting eminent domain to either traditional uses (roads and public buildings) or to eliminate blight.

In other cases eminent domain has been used by communities to take control of planning and development. Such is the case of the Dudley Street Initiative [6], a community group in Boston which attained the right to eminent domain and have used it to reclaim vacant properties in the purpose of positive community development.


The equivalent in Britain is "compulsory purchase", which has been used widely, sometimes controversially. The tactic most often used here is to announce the development, then offer low levels of compensation because the properties are 'blighted', unsellable because of the uncertainty about their future...

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 08:56 AM

At one time the word "liberal" meant someone opposed to absolute monarchy, although even then (mid- to late nineteenth century) the definition was inexact. Webster defines it as, among other things, "tolerant of views other than one's own, broad-minded, favoring reform or progress, tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual, progressive." I'm not exactly sure when it became, according to the 'right' (another word with many definitions), synonymous with the 'very far left', but I think it was within the last ten or fifteen years (or so). Perhaps it just morphed into meaning whatever they choose to demonize on any particular occasion

Personally, speaking as as a liberal, I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 03:00 PM

"First of all, the Supreme Court decision that John cites does not break any new legal ground. All the Court did was to uphold precedents that were established a long time ago. One example of this practice would be the cases in which urban renewal projects resulted in the confiscation (for private development) of the homes of many urban poor a few decades ago."


So that makes it all OK?





Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 03:16 PM

Makes what ok, Hubster? The fact that only the poorest of poor have experienced having their homes confiscated for private development over the last few decades? Certainly not... and that is the situation that the Supreme Court's decision was intended to correct. And it looks like it might be working, too.

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: kendall
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 05:09 AM

I understand the home of Justice Souter is under the gun. Good. A little "Equal justice under the law"

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 11:10 AM

conservatives would prefer that the government not be allowed to sieze property fron ANYONE!

The logic that it is wrong to seize property from poor people so lets correct that by allowing them to seize property from rich people is just plain dopey. (two wrongs don't make a right)

I don't care who appointed the judges on the Supreme Court.   It was a bad decision.

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 12:08 PM

It's not dopey if it solves the problem. Not doing anthing at all certainly wasn't solving the problem. But I'm not buying that line about conservatives prefering that the government not be allowed to sieze the property of anyone. I don't think they mind it at all as long as the property being siezed is not theirs. Otherwise, why are they only just now making a big stink about it when it's been going on for decades?

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 12:08 PM

Jesus Loves Me More (c) 2005
Buddy Tabor, Juneau, Alaska

Oh, I know it's cold sleeping in your car
But you really are to blame for where you are
I can see that you're down to skin and bones
But it's not my fault you're starving all alone

          You surely cannot punish my success
          Just because my way of life has been so blessed
          And the reason why you ain't got no food or any shoes
          Is 'cause Jesus loves me more than he loves you

While millions starve I'm putting on more weight
But that's not my destiny, not my fate
For I'd love to help you out but you have sinned
And I know you'd only go and sin again

But at night when I lie down there's something wrong
There's no joy when I try to sing this song
There's a little voice that will not go away
Telling me that I've judged and gone astray

    But you surely cannot punish my success
    Just because my way of life has been so blessed
    And the reason why you ain't got no food or any shoes
    Is 'cause Jesus loves me more than he loves you

Yes, Jesus loves me. Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me more than he loves you
Thank you, Lord.

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 03:15 PM

At any rate, the Supreme Court has the responsibility to uphold the constitution. In making the ruling they did, they upheld the "equal protection under the law" part of the Constitution. If people don't like the laws, they need to change them. To expect the Supreme Court to rule differently than they did would be expecting them to be "activist" judges, and right wrongs that can only be corrected through legislation.

Seems to me people who style themselves as "conservative" would understand this and support it.

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: pdq
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 04:17 PM

...please, folks, let's get back to reality...here is an informed and informative article:




Homeowners Lose
Eminent Domain Case

Institute for Justice Warns: Supreme Court Leaves Homeowners Vulnerable To Tax-Hungry Bureaucrats & Land-Hungry Developers

WEB RELEASE: June 23, 2005
CONTACT:
John Kramer
[phone]
[Private Property]



Susette Kelo: "I was in this battle to save my home and, in the process, protect the rights of working class homeowners throughout the country.  I am very disappointed that the Court sided with powerful government and business interests."

Scott Bullock: "With today's ruling, the poor and middle class will be most vulnerable to eminent domain abuse by government and its corporate allies.  The 5-4 split and the nearly equal division among state supreme courts shows just how divided the courts really are.  This will not be the last word."

Washington, D.C.— Today, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to home and small business owners throughout the country by allowing the government to use eminent domain to take homes so that businesses can make more money off that land and possibly pay more taxes as a result.

The Institute and its clients issued the following statements after learning of today's decision.

Chip Mellor, the president of the Institute for Justice, said, "The majority and the dissent both recognized that the action now turns to state supreme courts where the public use battle will be fought out under state constitutions.  The Institute for Justice will be there every step of the way with homeowners and small businesses to protect what is rightfully theirs.  Today's decision in no way binds those courts."

"The Court simply got the law wrong today, and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result," said Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice.  "With today's ruling, the poor and middle class will be most vulnerable to eminent domain abuse by government and its corporate allies.  The 5-4 split and the nearly equal division among state supreme courts shows just how divided the courts really are.  This will not be the last word."

"One of the key quotes from the Court to keep in mind today was written by Justice O'Connor," Bullock said.  "Justice O'Connor wrote, 'Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random.  The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.'"

Dana Berliner, another senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, said, "It's a dark day for American homeowners.  While most constitutional decisions affect a small number of people, this decision undermines the rights of every American, except the most politically connected.  Every home, small business, or church would produce more taxes as a shopping center or office building.  And according to the Court, that's a good enough reason for eminent domain."

Mellor said, "Today's decision doesn't end the Institute for Justice's fight against abuses of eminent domain.  We will work to ensure not only that the property owners in New London keep their homes, but that all home and small business owners are protected from these unconstitutional land grabs by governments and their business allies.  This is a terrible precedent that must be overturned by this Court, just as bad state supreme court eminent domain decisions in Michigan and Illinois were later overturned by those courts."

Susette Kelo, one of the homeowners challenging eminent domain abuse, said, "I was in this battle to save my home and, in the process, protect the rights of working class homeowners throughout the country.  I am very disappointed that the Court sided with powerful government and business interests, but I will continue to fight to save my home and to preserve the Constitution."

Mike Cristofaro, another one of the homeowners whose family has owned property in Fort Trumbull for more than 30 years, said, "I am astonished that the Court would permit the government to throw out my family from their home so that private developers can make more money.  Although the Court ruled against us, I am very proud of the fight we waged for my family and for the rights of all Americans."

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 11:49 PM

Nice article, but I read the actual arguments as they were presented to the Court, and the Justices responses. All of what I have said comes from those arguments and responses.

If you want to get a real picture of the "reality" of this decision, I suggest you do the same. Everything else is just grandstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: such compassion
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Aug 05 - 01:57 AM

arguments here