Well, to be the contrarian voice of the day:
I wonder what Judge George Greer of Florida thinks of this idea of threatening judges in response to court decisions we don’t like?
No one’s threatening Souter. They’re just saying, “Hey, we’re interested in using your property for commercial ventures.”
Yeah, Clements just picked Souter’s home at random.
Please. Clements is threatening to kick Souter out of his home because of a legal decision he doesn’t like. Let’s not whitewash this.
The salient point is that what Clement is doing is perfectly legal, whereas threatening to physically harm Judge George Greer isn’t.
Big deal. It’s legal, and it’s a shitty, immoral, dangerous thing to do.
First, if it’s wrong to take away poor people’s homes to build a strip mall then it’s wrong to take away Souter’s home to build a hotel. Souter’s position with respect to the case doesn’t make it right, because this isn’t the Old Testament and we’re supposed to be a bit beyond “an eye for an eye”.
Second, how can it possibly be a good idea to threaten judges at all just because they make a decision we don’t like? I thought we had a vested interest in an independent judiciary, not a judiciary that’s constantly looking over it’s collective shoulder wondering what personal revenge is going to be coming their way next.
And let’s make no mistake, that’s exactly what this is: personal revenge. This is the message being sent: “if you make a decision we don’t like, we’ll do nasty things to you.” That’s thuggery, and it’s wrong.
The advocating is legal, yes. But, if you actually read the decision, the plan is most likely unconstitutional (the majority doesn’t deal with it directly, but says something like this probably woudn’t survive, and Kennedy’s concurrence actually says this wouldn’t fly). In order to take land for economic development purposes, it has to be part of a carefully considered economic development plan. This is just vindiction and has nothing at all to do with development. Setting aside the fact if it was carefully considered.
Well, according to this decision, it is no longer constitutes a threat.
If it involves building new structures on the land for the purpose of making money, how does it have nothing to do with development? It seems to me that it fits the definition of development quite nicely, and I don’t see how “development” and “vindication” are mutually exclussive.
I say again: let’s not whitewash this. Clements picked Souter’s home precisely because Souter was one of the judges who voted with the majority. Any economic benefit is a happy side effect for Clements, and more importantly doesn’t excuse the vindictiveness.
So what?
Has long as the economic benefit is there, why should any other benefit be legally relevant?
I doubt it’ll actually go through, and I think Clements, rather than threatening him, is just trying to prove a point.
If you actually think that’s up there with threatening someone’s life, you’re sick.
I have not read the decision in whole, but is there an “intentions” stipulation?
If it involves a “carefully considered economic development plan” I’m sure Clements will be more than happy to develop one. After every stipulation in the decision is met (if any) then the proposal is legal regardless of intention.
I’m not disputing that Clements’ action is legal. I had thought I made that clear when I specifically said “It’s legal, and it’s a shitty, immoral, dangerous thing to do” less than an hour ago in this very thread.
Why the hell not? What’s the difference except as a matter of degree? “Make a legal decision we don’t like, expect personal consequences.” How is that possibly a good idea in a nation which values an independent judiciary?
In this case and “economic development plan” is not a document prepared by an individual developer, but rather it is a planning document prepared by the locality. Economic development plans, just like Comprehensive Plans, have to be developed with public input, have to be adopted by the local government body, and by themselves have no legal standing (they aren’t “law.”). Emminent domain, the zoning ordinance, and other local ordinances are the mechanism by which land use planning (and economic development) plans are implemented.
The second half of that was addressed to Guinastasia, not Metacom. My bad.
Not that you need my support, but you are absolutely correct; let’s be fair. But regardless of intention, Clements now has the right to to claim imminent domain over Souter’s property, given that he will develop it and that development will be economically more beneficial to the community.
Copy. Thank You. If that is the case, then no burden falls on Clements in regards to intention.
Clements has no such right, in that he is not the local government and cannot bring a condemnation suit based on emminent domain.
Of course it is. Does that really needed to be said?
In one case the ulimate result of the threat carried out is loss of private property. In the other instance the ultimate result of the threat carried out is loss of life. It is reasonable to assume that any threat made against someone will be carried out. Losing one’s private property is no where near the plane of losing one’s life.
And Clements isn’t even threatening Souter, in any manner.
I understand that. By claim, I meant “effect.”