The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I probably lose my Comintern card, but I agree with this (although "sacred" is a tad over the top ).

O'Connor's opinion is spot on -- this was "reverse Robin Hood." What could have been going on in the liberal justices' minds? It's so obvious that the practical result of this decision would be giving the wealthy yet another Neo-feudalist tool.

I dunno. I can't think of a better term for it . I've always viewed government's #1 (or at least very near the top) job is protecting a person's property. Again, the term "property" is broadly defined as a person's earned possessions as well as life and liberty. I really think the founding fathers were keen on Locke as some of what he wrote was borrowed from in writing the DoI and Constitution IIRC.

Regarding the liberal wing of the court, I remember my dad not believing for a second that it was the conservative wing of the court that voted to stop this "perverse" expansion of eminent domain. He couldn't believe it.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I look at it this way.

I've always considered our ownership of land to basically be at the pleasure of the government. Sure, we "own" it because we paid for it from someone else who "owned" it, but at the end of the day we all basically own it because the government said we could, and gave us a patent for it. If they want it back, they're going to take it back.

I don't think you can consider this statement a very american way of viewing the government and private property.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I agree. The idea that we are essentially leasing property from the government is just bizarre. The government came after the people, not before it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I dunno. I can't think of a better term for it . I've always viewed government's #1 (or at least very near the top) job is protecting a person's property.

Government's #1 duty is to prevent the strong from kicking the snot out of the weak. So the government prevents gangs from violating property rights and stealing, but it also prevents gangs of lawyers from ensuring that the law only protects the propertied classes. Typically, the choice is not life or death, so property protection is paramount. But if the choice is life or death, sorry Monty Burns, you've gotta share.

It's entirely possible the Founders would disagree, because the Founders still lived in a mental space where there was an economic caste system and folks who didn't own 10k acres in Virginia were SOL. Alexander Hamilton is perfectly free to come back from the grave and lecture me if he feels like it. He knows where to find me.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Alexander Hamilton is perfectly free to come back from the grave and lecture me if he feels like it. He knows where to find me.

I particularly enjoyed this line

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I agree. The idea that we are essentially leasing property from the government is just bizarre. The government came after the people, not before it.

Kind of. I find the leasing property bizarre. However, a man in isolation isn't a human being, he's just an animal. Humanness begins with community, so sometimes communal interests trump individual liberties. It's a balance, the aim of which is to ensure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Of those three things, none is in principle primary. Pragmatism (and politics) decides which is favored in which circumstances. The primacy of individual liberty, above every other consideration, is a cloak for the strong to beat up the weak.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Kelo was and remains a horrible decision. I don't think it's as bad as others in terms of actual fallout, though. Kelo says the government can do something, but most have chosen not to. While that leaves the door open for abuse, practically it hasn't changed much in actuality.

I can think of 3-4 cases since then that have been worse in actuality, even if not in principle.

 

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I've always considered our ownership of land to basically be at the pleasure of the government. Sure, we "own" it because we paid for it from someone else who "owned" it, but at the end of the day we all basically own it because the government said we could, and gave us a patent for it.

You can't be serious.
Can you? ... "because the government said we could"? Do you know what a representative government is?

I don't think you can consider this statement a very american way of viewing the government and private property.

What he said.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Kelo was and remains a horrible decision. I don't think it's as bad as others in terms of actual fallout, though. Kelo says the government can do something, but most have chosen not to. While that leaves the door open for abuse, practically it hasn't changed much in actuality.

I can think of 3-4 cases since then that have been worse in actuality, even if not in principle.

I'm waiting for the list and explanation...I love hearing your take on these things

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Government's #1 duty is to prevent the strong from kicking the snot out of the weak. So the government prevents gangs from violating property rights and stealing, but it also prevents gangs of lawyers from ensuring that the law only protects the propertied classes. Typically, the choice is not life or death, so property protection is paramount. But if the choice is life or death, sorry Monty Burns, you've gotta share.

It's entirely possible the Founders would disagree, because the Founders still lived in a mental space where there was an economic caste system and folks who didn't own 10k acres in Virginia were SOL. Alexander Hamilton is perfectly free to come back from the grave and lecture me if he feels like it. He knows where to find me.

Back then, wasn't it only land owners who voted? And is it possible, under the 24th amendment, that it could still be a requirement? Sounds like a back-door way of making sure only the global elite have a say, but it's possible. After all, don't you have to have an address to vote?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Kelo was and remains a horrible decision. I don't think it's as bad as others in terms of actual fallout, though. Kelo says the government can do something, but most have chosen not to. While that leaves the door open for abuse, practically it hasn't changed much in actuality.

I can think of 3-4 cases since then that have been worse in actuality, even if not in principle.

Actually, the EPA has claimed that, under changes in the Clean Water Act, if it rains on your property, the government may seize it without compensation. http://agenda21radio.com/?p=8612 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-claims-authority-over-more-streams-wetlands/

 

[unofan]

I'm waiting for the list and explanation...I love hearing your take on these things

Citizens United for sure. It wasn't the first campaign finance case and won't be the last, but equating money with speech and opening the floodgates for all the super PACs has led pretty much exactly where the dissenters said it would. It makes me wonder how bribery laws are still on the books frankly, because that is the next logical extension down this line of cases.

Voter ID laws (can't remember the case name) It should be telling that both former Justice Stevens and Justice Posner from the 7th Circuit have issued mea culpas on that one. If you have a raging liberal and a full blown conservative saying they got it wrong, they got it wrong.

Hobby Lobby - owners religious rights trump employees' rights even in a non religious setting. Awful.

Any federal arbitration act case. Talk about screwing over consumers to support mega corporations.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Citizens United for sure. It wasn't the first campaign finance case and won't be the last, but equating money with speech and opening the floodgates for all the super PACs has led pretty much exactly where the dissenters said it would. It makes me wonder how bribery laws are still on the books frankly, because that is the next logical extension down this line of cases.

Voter ID laws (can't remember the case name) It should be telling that both former Justice Stevens and Justice Posner from the 7th Circuit have issued mea culpas on that one. If you have a raging liberal and a full blown conservative saying they got it wrong, they got it wrong.

Hobby Lobby - owners religious rights trump employees' rights even in a non religious setting. Awful.

Any federal arbitration act case. Talk about screwing over consumers to support mega corporations.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board?

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I don't think you can consider this statement a very american way of viewing the government and private property.

Why engage in thoughtful discussion when you can simply label the opposing viewpoint as un-American and move on?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Good discussion by David Brooks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/opinion/david-brooks-the-next-culture-war.html?smid=nytnow-share&smprod=nytnow&_r=0

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I've always considered our ownership of land to basically be at the pleasure of the government. Sure, we "own" it because we paid for it from someone else who "owned" it, but at the end of the day we all basically own it because the government said we could, and gave us a patent for it. If they want it back, they're going to take it back.

While I don't fully agree, I entertained this concept a few years ago. Specifically real estate tax. So I get taxing income...but couldn't real estate tax from one point of view be analogous to leasing that property from the government?

(I've since come around to feeling that the services provided are commensurate to real estate one owns and therefore, a special tax is justified)

Government's #1 duty is to prevent the strong from kicking the snot out of the weak.

Is it though? Maybe this is semantics, but isn't the government's #1 duty to provide public goods that the private sector nearly as good or even at all? Of course, there's a critical role of the welfare of the weak vis a vis the execution of public goods. (and I know this is a tangent from your pt)

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Why engage in thoughtful discussion when you can simply label the opposing viewpoint as un-American and move on?

That's seriously what you take from that? I don't even know how else to respond to his thought process. He thinks we don't actually own the land, the government is just letting us lease it until they find a better use for it. That is extremely anti-american in my eyes. It goes against every fiber of my being for the way I few this country. That seems like a very socialist view of the world. What more can I say? I think I've been pretty good at discussion in here but at some point there are things just not worth discussing.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Good discussion by David Brooks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/opinion/david-brooks-the-next-culture-war.html?smid=nytnow-share&smprod=nytnow&_r=0

A couple of things. Wholeheartedly agree...that many Christians have been fighting too many culture wars (even if its one). Although Christian, I'm not a social conservative. That is to say...I am already there that the message needs to be about outreach. Where does that come from? Jesus messages...and the conclusion that the Bible was written for me to interpret for myself and not hang around everyone's neck. Bob I'm sure would disagree...but I think this instigate a culture war comes not so much from the Christian side but from the Conservative side. My Christian friends are moderates (i.e., not conservatives)...and they say nothing about this stuff, but do outreach to poor communities all the time.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

After all, don't you have to have an address to vote?

I doubt it. I assume the homeless don't vote much, but they can't be disenfranchised either.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Good discussion by David Brooks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/opinion/david-brooks-the-next-culture-war.html?smid=nytnow-share&smprod=nytnow&_r=0

That's the first piece by David Brooks in the last decade that wasn't tripe.

Of his parade of horribles, only one may come to pass -- removal of tax exemption for religious organizations -- and if it does they'll only have themselves to blame. When religious institutions were about building a community of faith and charitable giving, the tax exemption made sense. As they have become more and more just castles from which to launch blistering polemical partisan attacks, all the while amassing fortunes, the tax exemption makes no sense at all.

It amazes me, however, that in a country that is 70% Christian some Christians feel under siege. Trying being part of a 10% minority sometime, folks. I can't help thinking that what's really going on is that many Christians assumed that despite the First Amendment and America's long tradition of honoring religious tolerance, at least in the abstract, that these things were somehow noblesse oblige and it would be the Christian faithful who decided exactly where and when to distribute rights.

True separation of church and state doesn't work that way. Christians are going to learn the hard lesson that Jews, Muslims, atheists etc... have always known: equality means what it says. Anything lost in that transition wasn't a "liberty," it was privilege.