I have to say I really disagree with the way youre trying to characterize the issue. I think its more a matter of weighing social costs and benifits than anything else. Our government builds our cities, yes? It plans and it develops with an eye to its constituency, yes? Is this tantamount to communism or socia-economic dictatorship? I think not.
Say what you will, but I want to at least throw it out there that maybe you should wait until at least you've been at law school for a bit before you so readily criticize a Supreme Court ruling. It is undeniable that yes, this ruling sucks for the plaintiffs in this actual case and for people who may become the subject of an aggressive city in the future. But, the opinions themselves show that this case was about a lot more than fair and unfair. It was, to a large degree, about precedent. Some pretty well-entrenched precedent existed that logically pointed to this outcome, as troubling as that may have been for the 5 Justice majority. I'm sure they weren't sitting around saying "Aha, I'm going to rule this way because I like shopping malls better than poor people." They looked at the precedent and said "well, this is how the cookie crumbles unless we completely change course on this issue." With so much course changing occuring in other recent Supreme Court opinions, I am sure these Justices are a little tired of the "activist" word. This case also had a lot to do with deference. Those of you that are about to go to law school will learn about the significant deference that courts are supposed to give to decisions made by other branches of government that have the authority and expertise needed to make those decisions. It isn't a court's job to second-guess everything that the executive or legislative branches do. Instead, the court's sole role is to weigh in on the legality of a decision, not the wisdom. At the Supreme Court level, their job is to determine the constitutionality of a decision, and the Constitution cuts a pretty broad swath of permissible actions, especially in the economic arena.Though I usually tend to side with the O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist group, I think the majority got this one right. The dissent is "correct" when it says that this opens the door to many abusive practices, but its slippery-slope logic is a fallacy and the political process will, theoretically, keep the local governments in check.
In the end, however, it is the individualís sense of which policy purposes should prevail which governs their opinion.
Quote from: blogger on June 23, 2005, 12:15:18 PMI'm not sure how fair market value differs from actual market rate. Sure, someone may underprice their home, or they may overprice it. The trick is to first establish what someone would actually pay for it. Where I live houses go for 30-50,000 over asking price, easily.If your mortgage was locked in at a low interest rate, this could also really screw you.
I'm not sure how fair market value differs from actual market rate. Sure, someone may underprice their home, or they may overprice it. The trick is to first establish what someone would actually pay for it.
i thought the wording in the constitution allowed seizure for public use. it's a question if using the local government is a shell game for commerical use, because obviously commercial and public use are not one in the same. a commercial entity such as land developers would be prohibied from seizing property directly from an individual. so what is being questioned is if there is a degree of laundering in which essentially the same action is occuring where the commercial land-developers uses the local government as a proxy, procedural step. we hope the court offered guidelines in which the burden is on the local government for proving the seizure benefits the public as a whole.IMO, Walmart is commercial use.. and rarely could a seizure of private property for building a walmart and developing said supercenter comprise public use. is there a series of tests or objective means of determining this? holy *&^%, i can't believe id be siding with scalia and thomas... this is a first
Quote from: am'rain on June 23, 2005, 10:12:50 AMI think this is horrible. A huge step backward for the rights of private citizens. Utterly unfathomable. What policy purpose does this serve OTHER than to make those with money and power MORE POWERFUL? I, too, am shocked I agree with Scalia, but I am more shocked that Scalia didn't yet again invent constitutional protections for corporations and the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Maybe he had a change of heart.
I think this is horrible. A huge step backward for the rights of private citizens.