No Politics Please

[Rosestar]

I agree with much of your post, and I respect your opinion, but given the choice between an absolute ruling on the federal level that would disallow local communities from having the power to decide their own fate on this issue, even in the most extreme of circumstances; and the possibility (even probablity of) corruption in the process, I believe that this is still the best choice. Having faith in our system of legislature and judiciary at all levels is as much a part of the fabric of our country as personal property is. I don't doubt that there will be abuses, and we must be vigilant to them. Frankly I am damn glad this wasn't a decision that i had to make. We will just have to agree to disagree. :beer:

Yes, we have to agree to disagree.

So local communities should have the power to decide their own fate? That is what you are saying, right?

Then the School Board of the City of Topeka should've been allowed to continue the policy of "separate but equal" in their schools, right? (Remeber that pesky Federal intervention in the case of "Brown v. Board of Education". Who is the Federal govenment to meddle with local affairs!!!?).

I agree with the spirit of your opinion, just have problems with the historical perspective, or lack there of.

 

[Jim Brennan]

TO me there is a difference. Brown v Board of Ed overturning Plessy v. Ferguson is a ruling I avery familiar with. It affects me every day of my life. Seperate but equal is and was a myth. I don't see this the same way. I believe that there might be, in some rare cases, a need for eminent domain to be exercised using a private party. The courts ruling would have precluded that.

I have a pretty good understanding of history. It is something that I have actively researched for decades on a daily basis. I've read hundreds of books, and have actively sought opposing opinions to temper and challenge my views. More than once, doing so has changed my POV. This just isn't one of them....at least not yet

 

[Rosestar]

VJ,
This ruling, if decided for the plaintif would not have eliminated eminent domain for private use. What it would have done, or could have done, is set a standard for its use. The argument was about eminent domain solely for the purpose of "economic development". Using this case as a precedent is dangerous because the neighborhood that is going to be destroyed is not a slum, or is blighted. It is just a normal working class neighborhood who have the bad fortune to be located where a rich developer wants to build comercial buildings. This case sets too vague a standard and endangers every homeowner in the nation.

I know, I know, you are going to say that somewhere, someday, in some "rare case" (your words) this may be absolutly appropriate, so therefore it is ok to destroy these 90 homes to preserve the rights of communities to "decide their own fate". It sounds like that your saying that even if this case is an injustice and that there my be 1000 other cases of gross injustice, that's ok, cause someday, in some "rare case" it may be appropriate. Am I wrong, that is what you are saying, right?

Wow, I am glade we are not debating the death penalty. "It is better that a hundred innocent persons be executed, than one quilty person go free".

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I have to be with Rosestar on this one (As always able to agree to disagree with no malice). I still can't help feel that they dropped the ball and the private citizen is being screwed for private gain and that is never okay and especially with a 'one day a rare event might happen stance'

This ruling is a sad day in America Civil Liberites and or perceived freedom.

Go out and count 80 Homes in your neighborhood and imagine each family being told to leave. Then come back a year and half later to see the nice drug company and Mall in it's place. Sad and never ever ever under any circumstance something that is okay to do in this country.

Our country is turning into a bad dream (Yeah the constituion; checks and balances; good idea. But there is always fixed elections to contend with.) I can't even think about where we're headed for my 5 year old son and the crap he is gonna have to deal with.

 

[Jim Brennan]

VJ,
It sounds like that your saying that even if this case is an injustice and that there my be 1000 other cases of gross injustice, that's ok, cause someday, in some "rare case" it may be appropriate. Am I wrong, that is what you are saying, right?
".

No, that's not what I am saying. What I'm saying is that a law disallowing eminent domain involving a private company under any circumstances is too narrow. I believe that is the precedent that would have been set. That is all that I am saying.

I have faith in our imperfect system. Are you saying that it is not possible for a state or district court to look at a certain situation and make a fair and just ruling, citing the specifics of each situation? It sounds like you think that lower courts are unable to deal with this without oversight of some sort because they rule differently than you think they should.

I get the impression that you are turning this into a somewhat personal thing. I disagree with your POV and have explained my reasons. Isn't that the true heart of democracy?

And FWIW, this is far from a clear cut issue for me. I was cajoled into giving a specific opinion, which I did. That doesn't mean that it is not something that I struggle with. It's 51-49 for me, if not closer.

I have been very active most of my adult life being a boat rocker; someone who tries to stand up for my belief of what this country should be, Which, far more often than not, sides with the rights and responsibilities of the individual over the collective. I fight with large corporations, and even help other people do the same from time to time. I am not some pro corporate, right wing, elitist. And frankly I bristle at any such insinuation.

And BTW, I am against the death penalty.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Then thats a wrap. Thanks for keeping this civil fellas.

DEATH PENALTY?

Fry them all. Especially childrens crimes.