Eminent Domain Abuse

[Socrtease]

Before you rightwingers go to blowing one another this case Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, authored by Sandra Day O'Connor and supported UNANIMOUSLY is the beginning of this nonsense. The United States Supreme Court held that a state could use the eminent domain process to take land overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of private landowners, and redistribute it to the wider population of residents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Housing_Authority_v._Midkiff

This was the Burger Court and Rehnquist White and Burger also agreed with the case. In this case liberals thought it was a great decision because all those evil rich families in Hawaii owned almost Half of ALL land in Hawaii and 72% of Oahu was owned by just 22 people. The court had no problem with this land redistibution. Eminent domain has been mangled to the point it looks nothing like what it was meant to be.

 

[Cancel7]

Before you rightwingers go to blowing one another this case Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, authored by Sandra Day O'Connor and supported UNANIMOUSLY is the beginning of this nonsense. The United States Supreme Court held that a state could use the eminent domain process to take land overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of private landowners, and redistribute it to the wider population of residents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Housing_Authority_v._Midkiff

This was the Burger Court and Rehnquist White and Burger also agreed with the case. In this case liberals thought it was a great decision because all those evil rich families in Hawaii owned almost Half of ALL land in Hawaii and 72% of Oahu was owned by just 22 people. The court had no problem with this land redistibution. Eminent domain has been mangled to the point it looks nothing like what it was meant to be.

Very interesting information, thanks. Although I could do without the visual of the conservatives blowing each other…even though I suspect that is what is going on around here, behind closed threads.

 

[Bonestorm]

Before you rightwingers go to blowing one another this case Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, authored by Sandra Day O'Connor and supported UNANIMOUSLY is the beginning of this nonsense. The United States Supreme Court held that a state could use the eminent domain process to take land overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of private landowners, and redistribute it to the wider population of residents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Housing_Authority_v._Midkiff

This was the Burger Court and Rehnquist White and Burger also agreed with the case. In this case liberals thought it was a great decision because all those evil rich families in Hawaii owned almost Half of ALL land in Hawaii and 72% of Oahu was owned by just 22 people. The court had no problem with this land redistibution. Eminent domain has been mangled to the point it looks nothing like what it was meant to be.

That was my understanding as well. It is hardly activist for the court to follow established Supreme Court precedent. In fact, it seems more activist to disavow prior case law such as the Midkiff decision.

Then again, branding someone an "activist" just means you don't like the result.

 

[cawacko]

Before you rightwingers go to blowing one another this case Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, authored by Sandra Day O'Connor and supported UNANIMOUSLY is the beginning of this nonsense. The United States Supreme Court held that a state could use the eminent domain process to take land overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of private landowners, and redistribute it to the wider population of residents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Housing_Authority_v._Midkiff

This was the Burger Court and Rehnquist White and Burger also agreed with the case. In this case liberals thought it was a great decision because all those evil rich families in Hawaii owned almost Half of ALL land in Hawaii and 72% of Oahu was owned by just 22 people. The court had no problem with this land redistibution. Eminent domain has been mangled to the point it looks nothing like what it was meant to be.

Before you had to go and be a buzz kill and make me stop the lovefest that is going on in private e-mail those that the left dislike the most Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alioto were not involved in the ruling.

 

[Socrtease]

Before you had to go and be a buzz kill and make me stop the lovefest that is going on in private e-mail those that the left dislike the most Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alioto were not involved in the ruling.

Very true but it was hardly JUST liberals that started this goatscrew we call eminent domain in the modern sense of the word.

 

[cawacko]

Before you rightwingers go to blowing one another this case Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, authored by Sandra Day O'Connor and supported UNANIMOUSLY is the beginning of this nonsense. The United States Supreme Court held that a state could use the eminent domain process to take land overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of private landowners, and redistribute it to the wider population of residents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Housing_Authority_v._Midkiff

This was the Burger Court and Rehnquist White and Burger also agreed with the case. In this case liberals thought it was a great decision because all those evil rich families in Hawaii owned almost Half of ALL land in Hawaii and 72% of Oahu was owned by just 22 people. The court had no problem with this land redistibution. Eminent domain has been mangled to the point it looks nothing like what it was meant to be.

Now that I re-read the thread the only person that brought up that the Justices who ruled on the Kelo case were liberals was me and that was in response to Desh blaming on it the right-wing justices. I simply pointed out who the five were. So I'm not sure where all this blowing you are talking about is coming from because I would be there for that.

 

[uscitizen]

I fail to understand how in any way this would be in the "public interest"! It's not a needed highway or bridge or anything. Sounds like a strictly commercial venture, and relates directly to the inefficiency and corruption of government-- here at a local level -- that were addressed in another thread today.

I most sincerely hope that this effort to dispossess homeowners fails! Otherwise, I hope that they can take it to the S.C.

People are literally brainwashed into thinking if it is good for business it is good for America and everyone in it.

 

[cawacko]

People are literally brainwashed into thinking if it is good for business it is good for America and everyone in it.

What does that have to do with this case? The city of london wanted to do this because of the tax dollars that it would generate for the city. That is why they initially approved the development. What does that have to do with brainwashing?

 

[Socrtease]

Now that I re-read the thread the only person that brought up that the Justices who ruled on the Kelo case were liberals was me and that was in response to Desh blaming on it the right-wing justices. I simply pointed out who the five were. So I'm not sure where all this blowing you are talking about is coming from because I would be there for that.

No I was more responding to those saying "this is why we don't need anymore liberals on the court." I will inform you all that if not for the liberals you would not enjoy much of the protections from police searches that you do, much of your free speech would be regulated that is not, married people could not use contraceptives etc etc etc. Conservatives on the Supreme court have historically worked to limit individual freedoms. Liberals have NOT.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That was my understanding as well. It is hardly activist for the court to follow established Supreme Court precedent. In fact, it seems more activist to disavow prior case law such as the Midkiff decision.

Then again, branding someone an "activist" just means you don't like the result.

No, as I originally stated, whether or not it was a conservative court (which I thought it was at first) this is an activist decision. Eminent domain was not designed to take property from one private entity and transfer it to another private entity. (at least that is my understanding)

Whether this is conservative activism or liberal, the judges were creating law... which should be left up to the legislature.

 

[uscitizen]

What does that have to do with this case? The city of london wanted to do this because of the tax dollars that it would generate for the city. That is why they initially approved the development. What does that have to do with brainwashing?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[cawacko]

Thanks for proving my point.

Ok. Would you be so kind as to break that down to a more basic level for the slower folks such as myself what that point was?

 

[Little-Acorn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_Domain#United_States

What a pack of Idiots this right leaning scotus is

Poor little desh is so eager to bash anything conservative, that he doesn't even know it was the leftists on the court who formed the majority approving this abuse of Eminent Domain, while the four law-abiding justices (including one weathervane) screamed bloody murder over their decision.

He even missed the information in his own citation, pointing out that George W. Bush wrote and Executive Order forbidding the Fed govt from abusing Eminent Domain in this way.

Poor little desh. So eager to bash the right, that he doesn't notice it's the right doing things they way he claims to want, while his leftist cohorts commit the very abuses he pretends to abhor.

 

[cawacko]

People are literally brainwashed into thinking if it is good for business it is good for America and everyone in it.

Now that I'm off the phone I think I see the point you were trying to make. In the city of London it was the politicians, not the peolpe, that made this decision. And when you reference business what you are talking about is the government. And I agree with you point that many people are brainwashed into thinking the government is what's best for America and we need higher taxes because the government knows what's best.

 

[Socrtease]

poor little nut. So unobservant that in all this time he still thinks desh is a man. Be careful when you are out looking for a date little nut.

 

[Little-Acorn]

poor little nut. So unobservant that in all this time he still thinks desh is a man.

Unimportant in a debate forum.

Be careful when you are out looking for a date little nut.

Why, getting nervous?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Poor little desh is so eager to bash anything conservative, that he doesn't even know it was the leftists on the court who formed the majority approving this abuse of Eminent Domain, while the four law-abiding justices (including one weathervane) screamed bloody murder over their decision.

He even missed the information in his own citation, pointing out that George W. Bush wrote and Executive Order forbidding the Fed govt from abusing Eminent Domain in this way.

Poor little desh. So eager to bash the right, that he doesn't notice it's the right doing things they way he claims to want, while his leftist cohorts commit the very abuses he pretends to abhor.

1) I was the first to state it was a conservative court.... desh followed up on that and then when it was pointed out to her that it was the more liberal judges, she condemned them for their decision.

2) Desh is a woman, not a man.

 

[uscitizen]

Now that I'm off the phone I think I see the point you were trying to make. In the city of London it was the politicians, not the peolpe, that made this decision. And when you reference business what you are talking about is the government. And I agree with you point that many people are brainwashed into thinking the government is what's best for America and we need higher taxes because the government knows what's best.

Correct , but with a right wing slant, but few of us are perfect

 

[tinfoil]

That is because it isn't really. The "justification" is these types of projects can create more tax revenue per square foot than the homes that currently exist on the project. The "justification" continues in that if the government (typically local) has more revenue they can "do more" for the "people". Thus, it is "good for everyone"....except of course the owners of the property.... but screw them.... needs of the many....

There it is. You summed it up nicely. I believe it was the evil conservative judges who screwed us... what? It was the good liberals who saved us from the burdens of our property? Well, ownership is overated anyway. you wanna be good citizens, right? Well good citizens pay taxes and do as they're told. Ain't that right, cypress? Darla? I'm sure you two supported the decision os scotus.

http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/

 

[Damocles]

That was my understanding as well. It is hardly activist for the court to follow established Supreme Court precedent. In fact, it seems more activist to disavow prior case law such as the Midkiff decision.

Then again, branding someone an "activist" just means you don't like the result.

Please. If we expected them never to overturn a miscarriage of justice Dredd Scott would still be law. There is little doubt that they can see that what they are deciding is wrong, the question is will they do anything about it or will they just continue to site precedent...

Taking land from homeowners to make bigger homes for richer people is NOT a benefit to society, and it clearly isn't what Eminent Domain was meant for.