The bashing has begun in response to the Supreme’s ruling clearing the way for cities siezing property in the name of the principle of eminent domain. Given the records of the 5 justices who assented, this is seen as typical of “liberals” or “progrssives” or “the left”.
What I want to know how many people who identify with these groups support the ruling (or anyone who supports it for that matter).
Well, you can probably get a pretty good idea by going to the thread about this topic in the BBQ Pit.
For the record, though, i’m a leftist/progressive/whatever who thinks that the ruling stinks. However, as i made clear in the other thread, i oppose the ruling based on its outcome, not necessarily on whether it was consistent with any particular notion of judicial activism or judicial restraint.
Well I guess I’d be called “progressive” and I think the ruling sucks. Forcing people out of their homes so some businesses can muscle in is just WRONG.
I don’t get why this would be considered a liberal thing. It’s pro-business economic exploitation of the little guy, which is pretty much the main theme of Republican party.
Yeah, but the Republicans claim to be against too much government interference in people’s lives, so how can that be?
Oh, yeah. They’re a bunch of f*%$ing liars.
I support Eminent Domain for public purposes such as building roads, parks, schools, etc., even to revitalize blighted neighborhoods, but to use it to give it over to private concerns, IMHO, is corrupt.
If they ever try to do that to my neighborhood, there’s gonna be some folks picking buckshot out of their asses. The lucky ones, that is.
I’m a progressive, liberal, yello-dog voting Democrat who would have given Bill Clinton a blowjob myself if he had asked.
I have no problem with the decision.
Good and fine, people, but I would really like to hear from someone who actually supports the ruling and–for shits and giggles–get an idea of the political leanings of those who do.
Why? (About having no problem with the decision, not about giving Bill Clinton a blowjob)
As I posted in the thread linked by mhendo, I think it’s a terrible idea. I already think eminent domain for public purposes should be applied as sparingly as possible. I can’t foresee any situations in which I would support forcing people out of their homes for “economic development”.
Ah. Simulpost. Very good, plnnr. Care to elaborate? I don’t want to debate this issue, just get an idea as to the connection between ideological stance and the specifics of this issue.
I’m a non-conservtive who opposes this ruling. However, I really don’t want to hear from others who oppose it. I want to give those who support it a chance to explain why. There is a valid argument to be made with regards to improving the tax base, etc. But what does that have to do with being liberal/progressive? It need not, but do tell.
I’m the most liberal person I’ve ever met (well, except my dad), and I believe the ruling is a good one. I’ve debated it about as much as I want to in the Pit thread on the subject. but in simple form, I see no material difference between eminent domain to create a part and eminent domain to create jobs. I think there are a lot of situations in which it may be useful, and a lot of situations in which is can be abused, which is why we need to keep watch on our local elected officials. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to allow a single hold-out to frustrate economic development plans that could bring jobs, schools, healthcare, stores, and the light of day to an economically depressed region. Whether it’s worth it must be a case by case decision, and the ruling allows local governments the power to make those determinations.
–Cliffy
I may be a bit different in feeling that it doesn’t matter to me whether this was an evil corporate entity that benefitted. I wouldn’t feel any differently if the city appropriated a string of porno shops and strip joints and gave the land to a non-profit to house starving orphans. I don’t think the government should have the right to take property for purposes other than a clear public benefit to all citizens. My stance isn’t anti-corporate, it is anti big government.
“create a park” – that makes more sense, right?
–Cliffy
Can they seize golf courses and make them parks? I’d love to see some of that…
I’m generally liberal, but a pragmatist first. This ruling just offers WAAAAAAY too much opportunity for corruption to be good for America. It may be a “good” ruling legally speaking, but it sucks huge donkey dick in the effect it will have on society.
It blew me away to agree with Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O’Connor on a SCOTUS matter. My world is turned upside down.
My reasoning is that this should have been done on an entirely market basis. If you want the land, you need to make them a (financial) offer they can’t refuse. If they ask for too much then you don’t get the land and they don’t get the money. I think there are other almost as weasley uses for eminent domain (public stadia) but this is the most egregious use I’ve seen. For an airport or something like that I’m a bit more understanding.
Hey, buddy, you will only get those strippers when you pry them from my busy, busy hands!
Now we’re getting somewhere. Can you define “liberal” in such a way as to encompass your reasoning on this issue?
I don’t see how a progressive can support the ruling either. Sometimes you have to build a road or a bridge, or what have you, and houses must come down. But to say that a powerful corporation can condemn 18 blocks to build a big box in the middle of a parkinglog asphalt sea, because said store will generate sales tax, is preposterous. (Since yesterday, correct, but still preposterous). This ruling is detrimental to all homeowners…even the wealthy. Those fortunate enough to own houses in uniquely beautiful settings may find themselves forced out in favor of posh resorts.