Party At Souter's!

Mike · 06-30-2005, 07:43 PM

Approaching their Summer haitus, the Supreme Court whipped off about five decisions in the last week or so, some important, some obvious, and some vividly inconsistant. Though rather typical of Scotus, one of these stands out as the most archane interpretation of the Constitution in the post-Gideon era. What I am referring, of course, is Kelo, et al., v. the City of New London--a case that is as contravercial as it is landmark. However, I am not here to report the news, so I'm going to keep the summary brief.

Around 1998 and 1999, the city of New London, Connecticut, in South Eastern Connecticut, was seeking to revitalize a number of neighbors hoods in one of the largest towns on the Long Island Sound. Falling on relative financial hardships (relative to the rest of the State of Connecticut; the richest state in the Union), the City of New London planned to seize some 150 properties for what was supposed to be urban revitalization. Of course, there was nothing to revitalize, so the city struck a deal with Pfizer Corporation, the drug company with a pharmeceutical plant just south of the Groton Navy Sub base, the largest submarine base in the US, that Pfizer could build a plant on the land in conjuction with a privately owned, but publically contracted building company. The building company, per right of eminent domain--the power of government to evict landowners from their property against their will--paid the families to leave their home, as expressed in the Bill of Rights, pushed for by Anti-Federalists in lue of England's compulsory purchase act. A number of home owners did not want to move and called out the City of New London on their mishap. State and Federal governments cannot use eminent domain unless it is being used for a public service--a road, legitimate urban revitalization, or public facility. This was the first time in US history that a State government successfully managed to evict a number of citizens per eminent domain when the property was being handed to private citizens. Led by Susette Kelo who owned a small house on the Thames River, she and the others brought the case to the US Supreme Court.

This past week, the majority opinion was delivered by Justice Stevens: The City of New London, CT could evict Kelo, et al, from their houses without using the land for a public service. In concurrence with Paul Stevens is the typical lot of SCOTUS-Liberals, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Dave Souter, Steve Breyer, and Anthony Kennedy, who determined that as long as the land, owned privately, is put to a public use, it is permissible. But what public use is a workout facility for the Pfizer corporation, exclusive to only Pfizer employees, you might ask... Well, they claim that the tax payouts from Pfizer and the jobs created running the facility will benefit the community ... To the point of forcefully removing people from their households.

As Justice Scalia points out, this eliminates the distinction between public and private use of property, and as good old Sandra Day agrees, it's the reverse robin-hood mentality--taking from the poor, and giving to the rich. Now, though I did mention the "L" word a paragraph up, I should note that many of the staunchest internet-liberals (at least, at the forums I go to) are against this ruling, and rightfully so. The courtroom decision, however, was delivered by the Supreme Court liberals, leaving many Americans on the left with a feeling of dismay--as they relied on these four as the beacon of sanity, one netizen remarking how previously, he referred to the five who favored Bush in the 2000 election decision as "the gang of 5", but now, the group has been extended to "the gang of 9."

This will surely be a hotly disputed ruling for years to come, but it will also shape the 2006 and 2008 elections, as liberals scamper to clean it up or make it sound as smooth as possible, while the conservatives, those who forced compensation for eminent domain in the first place, attempt to push it to the forefront. Many of America's left were relieved that this ruling almost coincided with a contraversial speech delivered by President Bush this week, as it was a means to divert attention from yet another display of judicial activism and judicial jurisdiction, to our President's follies of speech.

However, there is, as always, some shred of fun coming from this case. Despite the hundreds left homeless, broke, and absent of their their most worthy financial investment... the CEO of Freestar Media (Limited Liability Corp.), Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a memo to the town of Weare, NH. Though, one might ask, what does Weare, NH have to do with anything? The only 'conservative' sharing the majority opinion, and the swing vote of the case, David H. Souter, holds recessed residence on a small farm in Weare, New Hampshire. In the Fax, Clements told the town of Weare that he would like to start eminent domain preceedings that will condemn Souter's farm, and open the "Lost Liberty Hotel" and "Just Desserts Cafe" on the premise. A small army of conservative libertarians have made the treck to Weare to protest Souter's decision during the time that he usually takes to escape his judicial duties.

The wonderful people of the interweb, of course, have continued to pursue Clements demands, with one individual opening up an ePledge on PledgeBank.com, where internet users will "pledge" to spend seven days in the tiny town of Weare, NH., buying local gas, eating at local restaurants, drinking local beer, and having a good time that can only be found in the middle of rural nowhere... All in the name of economic revitalization. Though only asking for 100 pledges, more than 670 have made the decision to dedicate a portion of their time and money to Weare, NH., to the Lost Liberty Hotel for their summer vacations. Being a conservative libertarian, living just 70 miles south of Souter's cosy cottage, and also working in the New London Registry of Deeds on occassion, I feel it my civic duty to help the town of Weare prepare to be revitalized!

Of the four basic rights that the founding fathers sought to preserve in this Union, we have lost three of them. The right to life, the right to property, the right to income. The only one that remains is your right to religious expression... While the three others were cast away by judicial activism and judicial jurisdiction ... The only two restrictions on the Supreme Court.

Mr Biglesworth · 07-01-2005, 02:13 AM

Wow, sounds absolutely surreal. What was the basis of the majority opinion asides from the flimsy 'it will indirectly help the community, somehow', other than that they're deranged liberals?

Mike · 07-01-2005, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Biglesworth

Wow, sounds absolutely surreal. What was the basis of the majority opinion asides from the flimsy 'it will indirectly help the community, somehow', other than that they're deranged liberals?

They were deranged liberals.

Oh ... wait...
Well, the swing vote was a conservative (Souter, of whom everybody is pissed) ... I haven't read his opinion yet because it takes a little while for all of them to get posted, where as the majority opinion is usually up on the internet the day after the decision is read.

For some brief history,

The 5th Amendment of the Constitution, hand-in-hand with the 14th, carries "the Takings clause" for Government seizure of property, with just compensation, as long as the seizing has a public use... Typically, this is applied to roads, rebeautification (a smut shop in the Commons of my town was bought out by the state per rebeuatification), and other government facilities that service the public. The just compensation is often a number far lower than the market-value of a house, often half as much of what a property would go for on the market, as its just what your property is appraised at by state and federal tax appraisers.

New London was declared a "distressed municipality" in the 1990s, especially after one of the larger Navy bases in the US, the Navy Undersea Warfare Center, was forced to close after military spending was cut in the mid 1990s. So, the 2000 or so people who worked and lived in the barraks, which is roughly 10% of the population was left without jobs... many of them moving to the neighboring town of Norwich or Groton, to be relocated at the Groton Navy Sub-base or a larger Nuclear energy facility just north of Norwich. So, while the local economy of surrounding towns was experience periods of growth, New London, especially in the area where the Navy base was located (known as the Fort Trumball area, named after some fort from a hundred years ago) was experiencing steady decline. So, in 1999, the powers that be decided that something had to be done. Just up the Thames river--an salt-water river that empties into the Long Island Sound--closer to Groton, Pfizer corp. opened their largest facility East of the Mississippi after the erecting success of Viagra. Pfizer expressed interest in opening a large gym, housing area, and recreational facility for Pfizer employees near the Groton facility. New London and the State of Connecticut was interested in replacing a section of town that was largely decaying, from the exodus from the city (which became a municipality due to population decline) to surrounding towns and cities. Many of the properties in the Fort Trumball area, though, were multi-century houses and properties owned by some of the original families who settled the area shortly after (James?) Hudson explored the Eastern seaboard, the Hudson river, and the Long Island Sound (and where he died in the Hudson bay, up in Der Canada).

So, you have some very expensive, very old properties intermingled with a rapidly declining community. The Connecticut real estate market has also grown considerably since the late-1980s with steady interest rates. Though still lower than most Massachusetts towns, the growing number of Connecticut-to-Boston commuters (only about an hour of easy highway driving) has driven real estate up in the last 10 years especially (especially with the financing/refinancing boom of the late 90s that has continued into today). The leading petitioner, Susette Kelo, bought her waterfront property on the Thames River in 1997, making considerable renovations and atleast doubling the property value. Most of the other petitioners have lived their for an average of over 25 years... one woman in the house that she was born in in 1917. These are their largest investments .. and when you're aging, you know that if you sell your house, you'll easily be several hundred thousand dollars richer. So these 15 or so petitioners were removed from their property, their property condemned (the term used when the state forces people off of their property).

-- NEWS BREAK -- (Justice) SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR JUST ANNOUNCED HER RETIREMENT

I gotta make the rounds at the regular political nonsense forums, I'll be back.

Mike · 07-01-2005, 10:50 AM

Ok, so that was news. Now, back to my stories.
---------

So these 15 petitioners or so take it through the CT supreme court, courts of probate, etc., and eventually take it to the Supreme Court where it is deliberated on for the last year, or whatever. And the decision is handed down last week.

Representing the opinion of the majority (5-4), Justice Stevens writes a lot of historical banter in his first two sections (I and II) and then gets into his decision in section III.

He admits that,

[quote]Two polar propositions are perfectly clear. On the one hand, it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation. On the other hand, it is equally clear that a State may transfer property from one private party to another if future

Mr Biglesworth · 07-01-2005, 12:55 PM

I don't have anything to comment, you cover this so well. But what do you plan to do with your life, Mike? What degree(s) will you be getting what do you want to do with them?

Mike · 07-01-2005, 01:41 PM

To summarize Stevens' point:
These buildings will have a "public purpose," as they're not limited merely to private enterprizes... like say ... a dock-yard would be, or something, so that can constitute as a "public service." I happen to disagree with that because I don't think that it's providing any service to anybody. The money that is garnered by tax revenues is being used for something else other than the public services (like roads, schools, etc).

To answer your question... By next May, I'll have a Bachelors degree in Political Science, concentrations in Philosophy and History (though, theology is teetering on the edge, I'm like 2 classes away from completing that... but I don't really want to take a shit load of difficult classes that will only hurt my GPA, I did enough of that last semester and busted my balls to get a 3.4 ... where as I have a bunch of friends taking HIS200 classes completing their major and getting the same GPA)... I plan on going to law school. I'd like to go to Suffolk Law in Boston, but my GPA is like ... 3.1, and a lot of kids from my school apply there, many being rejected, so I dunno. I'll go to any Bar Certified school.

I have to take the LSATs in the fall. I don't even care about them, I just don't want to take the preperation courses ... because I don't have enough money for them. But, whatever, they'll come and they'll go .. .just like the money that I need to pay for them.

I tinker with the idea of doing something in a political office, but I've wanted to move away from that ... it's so much bull shit. And while I love bull shit of all kinds ... it's just bull shit that I wouldn't want to be involved in all day every day. I like bull shit where I can be honest and not try to pretend like it's good bull shit ... I like bad bullshit ... but it's all about smiling and kissing babies, which I'm good at ... but I don't want to do. I want to rip people ... just be some sarcastic asshole that NOBODY likes. Unfortunately, you can't really get a job in public life doing that, really.

So ... Real Estate Law it will probably be.

Thank you for your kind words. I'll send you choice meats.

Mr Biglesworth · 07-01-2005, 02:30 PM

I was talking to my history teacher about political participation. She was of the opinion that you want to have at least 15 years of professional experience before going into politics. Of course she's moving from teaching to administration, so she might want the administrative experience. Personally I don't see why you can't make politics your own professional experience, if you are indeed well suited. In any case, you can find some level of political participation and plot your eventual entry into the fray.

Mike · 07-01-2005, 05:09 PM

My desired position, Dictator of the Americas, may take more than 15 years of experience.

06-30-2005, 07:43 PM	#1
Mike Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 489	Party At Souter's! Approaching their Summer haitus, the Supreme Court whipped off about five decisions in the last week or so, some important, some obvious, and some vividly inconsistant. Though rather typical of Scotus, one of these stands out as the most archane interpretation of the Constitution in the post-Gideon era. What I am referring, of course, is Kelo, et al., v. the City of New London--a case that is as contravercial as it is landmark. However, I am not here to report the news, so I'm going to keep the summary brief. Around 1998 and 1999, the city of New London, Connecticut, in South Eastern Connecticut, was seeking to revitalize a number of neighbors hoods in one of the largest towns on the Long Island Sound. Falling on relative financial hardships (relative to the rest of the State of Connecticut; the richest state in the Union), the City of New London planned to seize some 150 properties for what was supposed to be urban revitalization. Of course, there was nothing to revitalize, so the city struck a deal with Pfizer Corporation, the drug company with a pharmeceutical plant just south of the Groton Navy Sub base, the largest submarine base in the US, that Pfizer could build a plant on the land in conjuction with a privately owned, but publically contracted building company. The building company, per right of eminent domain--the power of government to evict landowners from their property against their will--paid the families to leave their home, as expressed in the Bill of Rights, pushed for by Anti-Federalists in lue of England's compulsory purchase act. A number of home owners did not want to move and called out the City of New London on their mishap. State and Federal governments cannot use eminent domain unless it is being used for a public service--a road, legitimate urban revitalization, or public facility. This was the first time in US history that a State government successfully managed to evict a number of citizens per eminent domain when the property was being handed to private citizens. Led by Susette Kelo who owned a small house on the Thames River, she and the others brought the case to the US Supreme Court. This past week, the majority opinion was delivered by Justice Stevens: The City of New London, CT could evict Kelo, et al, from their houses without using the land for a public service. In concurrence with Paul Stevens is the typical lot of SCOTUS-Liberals, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Dave Souter, Steve Breyer, and Anthony Kennedy, who determined that as long as the land, owned privately, is put to a public use, it is permissible. But what public use is a workout facility for the Pfizer corporation, exclusive to only Pfizer employees, you might ask... Well, they claim that the tax payouts from Pfizer and the jobs created running the facility will benefit the community ... To the point of forcefully removing people from their households. As Justice Scalia points out, this eliminates the distinction between public and private use of property, and as good old Sandra Day agrees, it's the reverse robin-hood mentality--taking from the poor, and giving to the rich. Now, though I did mention the "L" word a paragraph up, I should note that many of the staunchest internet-liberals (at least, at the forums I go to) are against this ruling, and rightfully so. The courtroom decision, however, was delivered by the Supreme Court liberals, leaving many Americans on the left with a feeling of dismay--as they relied on these four as the beacon of sanity, one netizen remarking how previously, he referred to the five who favored Bush in the 2000 election decision as "the gang of 5", but now, the group has been extended to "the gang of 9." This will surely be a hotly disputed ruling for years to come, but it will also shape the 2006 and 2008 elections, as liberals scamper to clean it up or make it sound as smooth as possible, while the conservatives, those who forced compensation for eminent domain in the first place, attempt to push it to the forefront. Many of America's left were relieved that this ruling almost coincided with a contraversial speech delivered by President Bush this week, as it was a means to divert attention from yet another display of judicial activism and judicial jurisdiction, to our President's follies of speech. However, there is, as always, some shred of fun coming from this case. Despite the hundreds left homeless, broke, and absent of their their most worthy financial investment... the CEO of Freestar Media (Limited Liability Corp.), Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a memo to the town of Weare, NH. Though, one might ask, what does Weare, NH have to do with anything? The only 'conservative' sharing the majority opinion, and the swing vote of the case, David H. Souter, holds recessed residence on a small farm in Weare, New Hampshire. In the Fax, Clements told the town of Weare that he would like to start eminent domain preceedings that will condemn Souter's farm, and open the "Lost Liberty Hotel" and "Just Desserts Cafe" on the premise. A small army of conservative libertarians have made the treck to Weare to protest Souter's decision during the time that he usually takes to escape his judicial duties. The wonderful people of the interweb, of course, have continued to pursue Clements demands, with one individual opening up an ePledge on PledgeBank.com, where internet users will "pledge" to spend seven days in the tiny town of Weare, NH., buying local gas, eating at local restaurants, drinking local beer, and having a good time that can only be found in the middle of rural nowhere... All in the name of economic revitalization. Though only asking for 100 pledges, more than 670 have made the decision to dedicate a portion of their time and money to Weare, NH., to the Lost Liberty Hotel for their summer vacations. Being a conservative libertarian, living just 70 miles south of Souter's cosy cottage, and also working in the New London Registry of Deeds on occassion, I feel it my civic duty to help the town of Weare prepare to be revitalized! Of the four basic rights that the founding fathers sought to preserve in this Union, we have lost three of them. The right to life, the right to property, the right to income. The only one that remains is your right to religious expression... While the three others were cast away by judicial activism and judicial jurisdiction ... The only two restrictions on the Supreme Court. Last edited by GT2000 : 06-30-2005 at 10:00 PM.

07-01-2005, 02:13 AM	#2
Mr Biglesworth Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: I live in London Posts: 862	Wow, sounds absolutely surreal. What was the basis of the majority opinion asides from the flimsy 'it will indirectly help the community, somehow', other than that they're deranged liberals?

07-01-2005, 10:50 AM	#4
Mike Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 489	Ok, so that was news. Now, back to my stories. --------- So these 15 petitioners or so take it through the CT supreme court, courts of probate, etc., and eventually take it to the Supreme Court where it is deliberated on for the last year, or whatever. And the decision is handed down last week. Representing the opinion of the majority (5-4), Justice Stevens writes a lot of historical banter in his first two sections (I and II) and then gets into his decision in section III. He admits that, [quote]Two polar propositions are perfectly clear. On the one hand, it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation. On the other hand, it is equally clear that a State may transfer property from one private party to another if future

07-01-2005, 12:55 PM	#5
Mr Biglesworth Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: I live in London Posts: 862	I don't have anything to comment, you cover this so well. But what do you plan to do with your life, Mike? What degree(s) will you be getting what do you want to do with them?

07-01-2005, 01:41 PM	#6
Mike Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 489	To summarize Stevens' point: These buildings will have a "public purpose," as they're not limited merely to private enterprizes... like say ... a dock-yard would be, or something, so that can constitute as a "public service." I happen to disagree with that because I don't think that it's providing any service to anybody. The money that is garnered by tax revenues is being used for something else other than the public services (like roads, schools, etc). To answer your question... By next May, I'll have a Bachelors degree in Political Science, concentrations in Philosophy and History (though, theology is teetering on the edge, I'm like 2 classes away from completing that... but I don't really want to take a shit load of difficult classes that will only hurt my GPA, I did enough of that last semester and busted my balls to get a 3.4 ... where as I have a bunch of friends taking HIS200 classes completing their major and getting the same GPA)... I plan on going to law school. I'd like to go to Suffolk Law in Boston, but my GPA is like ... 3.1, and a lot of kids from my school apply there, many being rejected, so I dunno. I'll go to any Bar Certified school. I have to take the LSATs in the fall. I don't even care about them, I just don't want to take the preperation courses ... because I don't have enough money for them. But, whatever, they'll come and they'll go .. .just like the money that I need to pay for them. I tinker with the idea of doing something in a political office, but I've wanted to move away from that ... it's so much bull shit. And while I love bull shit of all kinds ... it's just bull shit that I wouldn't want to be involved in all day every day. I like bull shit where I can be honest and not try to pretend like it's good bull shit ... I like bad bullshit ... but it's all about smiling and kissing babies, which I'm good at ... but I don't want to do. I want to rip people ... just be some sarcastic asshole that NOBODY likes. Unfortunately, you can't really get a job in public life doing that, really. So ... Real Estate Law it will probably be. Thank you for your kind words. I'll send you choice meats.

07-01-2005, 02:30 PM	#7
Mr Biglesworth Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: I live in London Posts: 862	I was talking to my history teacher about political participation. She was of the opinion that you want to have at least 15 years of professional experience before going into politics. Of course she's moving from teaching to administration, so she might want the administrative experience. Personally I don't see why you can't make politics your own professional experience, if you are indeed well suited. In any case, you can find some level of political participation and plot your eventual entry into the fray.

07-01-2005, 05:09 PM	#8
Mike Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 489	My desired position, Dictator of the Americas, may take more than 15 years of experience.