Supreme Court OK's seizure of personal property

[Intuition]

Too many good points to cite them all Bosco. Been a while since I enjoyed a discussion as much as this one.

As I mentioned previously, my goal is to become wealthy and powerful enough so that local governments will be helping out my businesses rather than taking my house. 

[CatLogos]

As perspective/current law students, we should all know how long the political process takes. We can't let our generation of intellects in the field of law make the same mistakes as the current policy makers. (i.e. Recent SC/Ex/Leg decisions) Although some of us aspire for fortune-we MUST consider the other 99% who don't know how to work within the system. Assisting them is our ultimate duty. Utilitarianism and Individualism are not a cohesive match. Time will tell...

[Intuition]

As perspective/current law students, we should all know how long the political process takes. We can't let our generation of intellects in the field of law make the same mistakes as the current policy makers. (i.e. Recent SC/Ex/Leg decisions) Although some of us aspire for fortune-we MUST consider the other 99% who don't know how to work within the system. Assisting them is our ultimate duty. Utilitarianism and Individualism are not a cohesive match. Time will tell...

I disagree wholeheartedly that utilitarianism and individualism are not a cohesive match. I reach my highest utility for society when I reach the potential I have as an individual. But your point about considering the 99% who don't know the system is well taken.

[amarain]

This issue was already discussed
I think you got it wrong--Thomas, Scalia, and Renquist (or Lindquist) were arguing from the perspective of the wealthy!!!!!!!!!!

I'd suggest that  the issue involved, in the trio's view, wasn't whether the "little guy" can have his home seized in the service of the interests of big business. Rather, the issue here was whether wealthy landowners can have the government seize the property in the service of big business, rather than letting the wealthy landowners rook the business for every last penny they can get.

Do poor people own property? No. Do rich people? Absolutely--lots of it. Vacation houses, rental real estate, apartment buildings, and thousands of acres of prime real estate. (Just go to California where just about anything over 100 acres is owned by wealthy persons who fully intend to sell to big business at high costs..eventually.) The holding in this case wasn't narrow--it wasn't that the Gov can take the little homes of the few working Joes. The decision has far greater significance to wealthy landowners.

Of course, O'Connor, a moderate, argued from a realist's view, and in my view of things, was correct. But the arguments made were ones which should have been applied equally to the dozens of other cases for which these same judges were, in my view, incorrect.

How do you know that they were "arguing from the perspective of the wealthy"? I couldn't find a separate dissenting opinion written by Scalia or the others besides O'Connor. Is there one?

If there is not, then I'm inclined to think that you would criticize them no matter what, simply because they're conservative and you don't like conservatives. Either he rules in favor "oh, he's just in favor of the evil corporations seizing the land of the poor!" or he rules against and it's "oh, he's just concerned about the evil government seizing the land of the rich people!" Of course, to the liberal you're willing to ascribe the best of motives...

[BoscoBreaux]

This issue was already discussed
I think you got it wrong--Thomas, Scalia, and Renquist (or Lindquist) were arguing from the perspective of the wealthy!!!!!!!!!!

I'd suggest that  the issue involved, in the trio's view, wasn't whether the "little guy" can have his home seized in the service of the interests of big business. Rather, the issue here was whether wealthy landowners can have the government seize the property in the service of big business, rather than letting the wealthy landowners rook the business for every last penny they can get.

Do poor people own property? No. Do rich people? Absolutely--lots of it. Vacation houses, rental real estate, apartment buildings, and thousands of acres of prime real estate. (Just go to California where just about anything over 100 acres is owned by wealthy persons who fully intend to sell to big business at high costs..eventually.) The holding in this case wasn't narrow--it wasn't that the Gov can take the little homes of the few working Joes. The decision has far greater significance to wealthy landowners.

Of course, O'Connor, a moderate, argued from a realist's view, and in my view of things, was correct. But the arguments made were ones which should have been applied equally to the dozens of other cases for which these same judges were, in my view, incorrect.

How do you know that they were "arguing from the perspective of the wealthy"? I couldn't find a separate dissenting opinion written by Scalia or the others besides O'Connor. Is there one?

If there is not, then I'm inclined to think that you would criticize them no matter what, simply because they're conservative and you don't like conservatives. Either he rules in favor "oh, he's just in favor of the evil corporations seizing the land of the poor!" or he rules against and it's "oh, he's just concerned about the evil government seizing the land of the rich people!" Of course, to the liberal you're willing to ascribe the best of motives...

Sounds to me it is you who are jumping to conclusions. When making evaluations, one considers the totality of one’s decision, not merely one statement. We would not need to hear Ralph Nader’s opinion to have a sense of what he was most likely thinking in making decisions, albeit non-judicial ones. Those who suggest his opinions are based on his political ideology’s bias in favor of the underclass wouldn’t be wrong in saying so, nor would it reflect partisan bias.  In my view, your rationale is faulty. But what about your conclusion? Do I “dislike” Scalia because he is conservative. Actually, Kennedy and O’Connor are both conservative (in the accurate definition of the term) and I consider them to be ideal Supreme Court justices, even though I may disagree with them frequently. They, however, have not established a tradition which leads me to question their motives. And certainly, the statement that I “don’t like conservatives” presupposes that I am not one (which I very well may be).

What I do dislike is hypocrisy, which is not limited to either political spectrum (e.g., Breyer in the Ten Commandments cases). Thus, despite agreeing with Scalia's decision, I abhor the hipocrisy of it in the context of other decisions (strict constructionist on social issues, but then massively wild-and-loose interpretations of the Commerce Clause and other Federal provisions).

[St. Shaun]

This issue was already discussed
I think you got it wrong--Thomas, Scalia, and Renquist (or Lindquist) were arguing from the perspective of the wealthy!!!!!!!!!!
Of course, O'Connor, a moderate, argued from a realist's view, and in my view of things, was correct. But the arguments made were ones which should have been applied equally to the dozens of other cases for which these same judges were, in my view, incorrect.

First off, the trio concurred with O'Conners dissent.  I don't get how your seperating them.  Secondly, the facts of this case (and it is fairly narrowly held) go exactly against your conclusion about the trios motives.  A poor couple who have owned their home for 50 years, come on.

The trios motives would more accurately be described as a libertarian leaning.  Besides wealthy land oweners don't fear city counsels seizing their lands because they have such strong influence on the counsels.  That's what really makes this decision stink to me.  The wealthy (land owners and developers) have alot of influence on the city and state level.  This opens the door for mass seizure of the largly lower class.  To argue otherwise is pretty naive.

[Amanda H.]

This issue was already discussed
I think you got it wrong--Thomas, Scalia, and Renquist (or Lindquist) were arguing from the perspective of the wealthy!!!!!!!!!!
Of course, O'Connor, a moderate, argued from a realist's view, and in my view of things, was correct. But the arguments made were ones which should have been applied equally to the dozens of other cases for which these same judges were, in my view, incorrect.

First off, the trio concurred with O'Conners dissent.  I don't get how your seperating them.  Secondly, the facts of this case (and it is fairly narrowly held) go exactly against your conclusion about the trios motives.  A poor couple who have owned their home for 50 years, come on.

The trios motives would more accurately be described as a libertarian leaning.  Besides wealthy land oweners don't fear city counsels seizing their lands because they have such strong influence on the counsels.  That's what really makes this decision stink to me.  The wealthy (land owners and developers) have alot of influence on the city and state level.  This opens the door for mass seizure of the largly lower class.  To argue otherwise is pretty naive.

Agreed.

They weren't arguing from the "perspective of the wealthy".  They were arguing in defense of basic property rights, which are essential in a free society.  (One of the other "checks and balances" that help keep the government in line.  It's not a coincidence that those societies without private property rights have always been oppressive and totalitarian.) 

Just because wealthy people value property rights doesn't mean that it's not also important to the ordinary citizen -- as this case clearly indicates.

[BoscoBreaux]

This issue was already discussed
I think you got it wrong--Thomas, Scalia, and Renquist (or Lindquist) were arguing from the perspective of the wealthy!!!!!!!!!!
Of course, O'Connor, a moderate, argued from a realist's view, and in my view of things, was correct. But the arguments made were ones which should have been applied equally to the dozens of other cases for which these same judges were, in my view, incorrect.

First off, the trio concurred with O'Conners dissent.  I don't get how your seperating them.  Secondly, the facts of this case (and it is fairly narrowly held) go exactly against your conclusion about the trios motives.  A poor couple who have owned their home for 50 years, come on.

The trios motives would more accurately be described as a libertarian leaning.  Besides wealthy land oweners don't fear city counsels seizing their lands because they have such strong influence on the counsels.  That's what really makes this decision stink to me.  The wealthy (land owners and developers) have alot of influence on the city and state level.  This opens the door for mass seizure of the largly lower class.  To argue otherwise is pretty naive.

Agreed.

They weren't arguing from the "perspective of the wealthy".  They were arguing in defense of basic property rights, which are essential in a free society.  (One of the other "checks and balances" that help keep the government in line.  It's not a coincidence that those societies without private property rights have always been oppressive and totalitarian.) 

Just because wealthy people value property rights doesn't mean that it's not also important to the ordinary citizen -- as this case clearly indicates.

According to your argument, stated rationale is a pure reflection of one’s beliefs. I would suggest, however, that is not the case, for if it were true, those same principles would be applied evenly across cases. Instead, many justices tend to “cherry pick” which argument makes their holding most pallettable. (NeoCons sounding more like Ralph Nader than Ralph Reed this time ‘round.)  Of course, if Scalia and Thomas had long traditions of championing the needs of those impoverished souls that held steadfastly to their little abodes, maybe I’d infer that to be the thrust of their concerns.

Basic property rights. By definition, those without property don’t have property rights, in a de facto sense. Only those with property rights have property rights. Up until startlingly recently, only wealthy white males could own property. See a trend here? In 1790, if you upheld property rights, you are largely championing the rights of the wealthy (specifically, wealthy whites). Now, virtually anyone is legally able to buy real property, but those who are wealthy have a far greater capacity for it then everyone else. To suggest that there is no tie between upholding property rights and upholding the interests of the wealthy is inaccurate.

Regardless, I’d admit speculation is pervasive here.

[InVinoVeritas]

The trios motives would more accurately be described as a libertarian leaning.  Besides wealthy land oweners don't fear city counsels seizing their lands because they have such strong influence on the counsels.  That's what really makes this decision stink to me.  The wealthy (land owners and developers) have alot of influence on the city and state level.  This opens the door for mass seizure of the largly lower class.  To argue otherwise is pretty naive.

i minor quibble here.  i don't think wealthy people have nothing to fear because they wield inordinate influence in local government.  wealthy property owners are immune mostly because the property they own tends to be valuable.  The homes of the wealthy are not they types of homes taken with an eye to economic redevelopment.  Afterall, the goals of develpment agencies are typcially to produce the kinds of real estate that produce lots of tax revenue.