Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Supreme Court Says Gov't Can Take Your House
Topic Started: Jun 23 2005, 08:10 AM (688 Views)
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 26 2005, 08:35 PM
ivorythumper
Jun 26 2005, 04:01 PM
If you were a careful reader, you would see that I am not advocating judicial activism, but only that the constitutional rights of the individual American citizen are protected against the abuse by intermediating local and state authorities. That is a right we have as citizens. This in no way can reasonably be construed as my desiring a stronger central government or judicial activism. The status quo is fine with me.  Stick to what I write, and not what you think I wrote.

A majority opinion did not see that the citizen's constitutional rights were being violated.  Four members of the Supreme Court did, and gave cogent arguments for their dissenting opinions which led them to consider the grounds of this particular eminent domain issue as violating the constitutional rights of the citizen-- which I share.  They were outvoted and we now have a new rule of law which I suspect will be very bad for the matter of personal property rights -- unless very carefully ruled on by lower courts in subsequent cases.

You have a problem with that?

I have no trouble with it, but the bottom line is you want activist Federal judges to usurp the rights of local government.

Property rights are not sacrosanct in our system of government and never have been. The infringement on property rights through all sorts of legislative, judicial and regulatorty measures has been going on since before the writing of the Constititution.

There are clearly legislative remedies to limit this on both the state level and then on the local level. To argue that the Supreme Court should ignore these remdies and the citizens ability to enact those remedies is nothing more than wanting the central government to step in and limit state and local power in an area that has traditionally been theirs.

Give me any argument you want, but it is nothing more than the use of the strong arm of the Federal Government as big brother -- nothing else.

No Rick, let's try this one more time -- your positing of judicial activism is neither what I said nor what I implied nor what can reasonably and intelligently be inferred from what I wrote nor want I want nor what I think best.

Our system of redress in the US allows for citizens to appeal ultimately to the highest court in the land. That is what happened. As it was, in this case, unsuccessfully by a very narrow margin.

The Supreme Court obviously thought that the case deserved a hearing.

None of this suggests judicial activism. I do think it was a bad decision, and I think that big corporations will have a field day over the little guy with it.

You seem to just be grinding that axe because you must think that I am somehow in contradiction with what you assume to be my principles of jurisprudence.

Give it a rest.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3