« Judging Away | Main | Movin on Up! »
Get Over It
July 06, 2005
Justice Souter is under attack. After voting in favor of Kelo, a group of people are suggesting that they have his hometown use eminent domain to take Justice Souter’s home and turn it into a hotel.
The first time I heard it, I chuckled. The second time I said “give me a break.” By the time I heard it the third, I was quite sick of the suggestion, especially since I’d read the opinions and dissents of Kelo. Now, the more I hear about it, the more I get annoyed at it.
Asking a small New Hampshire town to proceed with eminent domain proceedings against a Supreme Court Justice is quite harsh. I’m sure he’d use all means necessary to prolong the proceedings, and I’m sure he’d get a pretty penny as just compensation.
Also, the Kelo ruling says nothing about random property-seizures. The Court points to plans and ensuring that the seizure fits into the character of the whole area. A hotel in the middle of a residential neighborhood is farfrom that. If his house was on a commercial street, I might understand more.
Furthermore, these conservative nuts who are proposing this hotel are taking the Kelo ruling too seriously. Yes, the ruling allows the use of eminent domain for economic development, but the ruling also mentions that states still have the ability to restrict this type of eminent domain usage. That’s the key. People should focus on the state legislatures, not the Federal court! For goodness sake, the Court even mention’s Michigan’s case law regarding eminent domain for ED in its opinion (well, in a footnote).
People are focusing on the Federal Court much too much lately. We need to focus on State Legislatures and Courts. Hmmph. Rant over.
P.S. Something interesting… On Sunday, the man giving the final prayer mentioned the Supreme Court 10 Commandments decision and asked God for the opression to end… Christa and I were flabbergasted, to say the least. The final prayer went for about 10 minutes, in which he also mentioned old Roman warriors, a couple random old Bible stories, and of course, the attacks on Christianity in the U.S.
Posted by paul at July 6, 2005 09:56 AM
Post a comment
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.meermacatawa.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/105
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Get Over It:
» escort charlotte nc from escort charlotte nc
t389t [Read More]
Tracked on December 4, 2008 08:05 PM
» filipino escort from filipino escort
t896t [Read More]
Tracked on December 4, 2008 08:07 PM
» london anal escorts from london anal escorts
t356t [Read More]
Tracked on December 4, 2008 08:08 PM
» prague escorts from prague escorts
t614t [Read More]
Tracked on December 4, 2008 09:08 PM
» salt lake city escort from salt lake city escort
t414t [Read More]
Tracked on December 4, 2008 09:11 PM
» escorted tours to china from escorted tours to china
t958t [Read More]
Tracked on December 4, 2008 10:08 PM
» swinger posts from swinger posts
t997t [Read More]
Tracked on December 4, 2008 10:08 PM
» escort amsterdam from escort amsterdam
t934t [Read More]
Tracked on December 4, 2008 11:08 PM
» resort swingers from resort swingers
t345t [Read More]
Tracked on December 4, 2008 11:13 PM
» nashville tn escorts from nashville tn escorts
t534t [Read More]
Tracked on December 4, 2008 11:16 PM
» aussie swinger from aussie swinger
t855t [Read More]
Tracked on December 5, 2008 12:10 AM
» independent escort las vegas from independent escort las vegas
t176t [Read More]
Tracked on December 5, 2008 12:10 AM
» baton rouge escort from baton rouge escort
t984t [Read More]
Tracked on December 5, 2008 12:17 AM
Comments
dean said on July 7, 2005 06:50 PMI felt the same way when I first heard about the hotel group going after Souter's land. It's kind of humorous and ironic in that Alanis Morissette "isn't it ironic" way. But if they really go through with it, it seems inappropriate. I don't think retaliation against a judge is ever a good motivation.
As far as Kelo, its probably true that some people have overreacted. But I still think its a poorly decided case. First, I'm no fan of the general modern trend in takings clause jurisprudence. I take seriously the phrase "public use," which, given the precedent interpreting it, now means the same as "public benefit." Had the drafters of the Constitution meant this, they would have used different language. But I think there are problems with this decision even for those who read the Constitution more broadly and aren't as concerned with originalism. The majority places great emphasis on the fact that the city's development plan is "carefully considered." For this reason, they can justify the taking of a large number of properties, without examining whether the taking of each individual property is a public use (or benefit). Also, the Court is unnecessarily deferential to the city's plan. Essentially, a city need only tell the court that they think a particular taking or group of takings would develop the city economically, and the Court would accept that. I see no reason to place so much faith in city planners (no offense paul). Finally, the court says "There is, moreover, no principled way of distinguishing economic development from the other public purposes we have recognized." This may be true if the court is trying to distinguish economic development from other "public benefits," based on a broad meaning of the takings clause, but if the court reinstated the more literal definition - public use - I think the court could definitely come up with principled distinctions. In fact, many courts have already (common carrier, etc.).
As far as the state/federal issues involved in this case, I would probably disagree with you Paul. Its true that the court says that state governments can still limit eminent domain. Of course they can, it would be senseless for the court to ever say that states couldn't limit eminent domain within their borders. This would be great if it were guaranteed that the states would do so, but in the situations where they don't, its the court's duty to intervene (when prompted by the parties that is.) And finally, you say "People are focusing on the Federal Court much to much lately. We need to focus on state legislatures and courts." I'm all for states rights, but I don't think we need to "focus" on any one court. Each has their duties and powers, and the interplay between the two is a good thing.
Paul said on July 7, 2005 09:38 PMHehe, no offense taken against the planning comment. I wouldn't trust some planners to make decisions. I'm much more interested in figuring out ways to "plan" areas without having government actually control people - i.e. force them to do certain things.
And the focus part. Well, I would really say, let's not focus much on the courts, more on the legislature. State legislators make many laws that really affect our lives, yet people never realize that.