If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   Remember when New London took those homes and the Supreme Court said it was OK because they had this great development plan worked out with Pfizer...? Yeah, it didn't quite work out   (online.wsj.com) divider line 437
    More: Fail, Pfizer, City of New London, development plans, supreme court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, research and development, supreme court justices, pass laws  
•       •       •

32432 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Nov 2009 at 1:51 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



437 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-11-11 08:40:21 PM
subaudio: StampedingElephant: It was a 7-2 ruling, with Breyer and Souter voting with the Conservatives.

There was a 7-2 ruling in portions of the case, but the remedy portion, halting the recounts, was 5-4.


The chiefest defect in the decision was, of course, that it wasn't ripe. There were plenty of Constitutional procedures yet to run.
 
2009-11-11 09:28:57 PM
Red Shirt Blues:

For:

Stevens
Kennedy
Souter
Ginsburg
Breyer

Against:

O'Connor
Thomas
Scalia
Rehnquist


Don't worry though, I'm sure every one of the justices Obama appoints will fall into the For category. The Fark/Obama community is very supportive of the Kelo decision...right?
 
2009-11-11 09:46:30 PM
jimpoz: TheGreenMonkey: wylkyn: gilgigamesh: sboyle1020: Treygreen13: subaudio: Oliver Twisted: Kelo v. City of New London

Worst. Decision. Ever.

Dred Scott v. Sandford?
Bush v. Gore?
Plessy v. Ferguson?

Seriously? Bush v. Gore goes over Korematsu v. United States?

What about Mega Shark v. Giant Octopus?

Alien vs. Predator?

HHH vs. the Hulkster?

Borg vs. Cylons?

Kramer v. Kramer?

North vs. South? (Although I am quite happy with the decision some others might think it turned out wrong)

Haley v. United States.
Haley 7, United States 0.
You see, it can be done. It can be done!


Pros. vs. Joes?
 
2009-11-11 10:04:06 PM
spartacus_prime: belowner: People will remember this when the revolution comes.

Is this you?


Yeah, that's me. Wanna fight about it?
 
2009-11-11 10:14:42 PM
Oliver Twisted: Kelo v. City of New London
Worst. Decision. Ever.


What about "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company"
 
432
2009-11-11 10:36:29 PM
img199.imageshack.us
 
2009-11-11 10:39:49 PM
Impudent Domain: What we have now with the takeover of the auto, banking, and soon insurance business is pure crypto fascist style corporatism.

It's not fascism when they do it.

Oh, and can you really say their fascist style corporatism is hidden? Wouldn't the more accurate term be blatant?
 
2009-11-11 11:29:43 PM
I've been saying this forever, if you'll look at my history. And my Fark number.

Big government always sucks. No exception now, just because you just learned how to use the Internet.
 
2009-11-11 11:35:47 PM
jesdynf: craig328: If you don't understand that it's a court's job to uphold and enforce the laws of the land and that it's the USSC's job to ensure that happens...then possibly the problem isn't with the decision itself but your inability to grasp the mechanics of the system that produces such decisions.

You get the benefit of the doubt -- once -- and so I've looked up http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5678490 for you. If you're still gonna pretend you don't understand my complaint after you're done, then that's fine -- that's what your character does, and I'll shove you in DexeTroll and be done with you.


Tell you what asshole, go ahead and do it now. With your brand of stupid, I'm good you isolating yourself from me. Go for it.

Oh yeah, you forgot to trademark your steaming pile of code, here lemme do it for you:

"DexeTroll®: When competing in the arena of ideas makes you a sad panda"
 
2009-11-11 11:43:46 PM
libbynomore2: land grab-money grab

what's the difference?

none.


too many people don't give a shiat about either governmental abuse as long as it isn't happening to them

and too many actually enjoy it when it feeds their envy and jealousy of people who are more successful than they are.


/yes, they all voted for Obama


Um... Did you miss the whole corporate greed undertone of this whole undertaking? While you talk about people not giving a shiat about governmental abuse, conservatives actually encourage corporate abuse. Not just in passively not stopping it, you fellows practically bend over and ask for corporations to give it to you up the bum.

Given a choice between corrupt corporations being trounced by a corrupt government, and a corrupt government being trounced by corrupt corporations, I'll take the government winning any day. At least I can vote government scumbags out. Corporations have even less accountability.
 
2009-11-11 11:44:26 PM
Inquisitive Inquisitor: Asa Phelps: Right now, someone at Pfizer is explaining to people that if they hadn't turned the whole thing into a court battle and delayed construction for so long they'd have a profitable business there instead of a vacant lot.

That's the exact argument they used in an early news story actually. According to Pfizer if it had not been delayed by the court battle the development would have occurred before the economic slump and perhaps the infusion of tax revenue from the new construction would have mitigated the effects of the downturn on the local economy.

They came within a breath of blaming the loss of property values in the area solely on Susette Kelo.


Or the city/pfizer could have just bought her out at whatever price she wanted if they didn't want to wait for the courts to decide.
 
2009-11-11 11:45:57 PM
medius: craig328: You think had the decision been reversed that the charge of the effect of politics magically disappears

no, if it was a political question then the Court should have avoided it like hot lava

that is: if that analysis is the correct one then taking the case was an error

but, despite the disagreement I had with Justice Kennedy over actual inherent versus "smoke and mirrors" legitimacy of the entire justice system (and Scalia over what constitutes a reuben), I believe the black robed nine probably had a better handle on the situation--or at least had a real enforceable authority to act--unlike some drunkard twenty-something who was still a year away from even taking the LSAT at the end of 2000

now, if you'll excuse me, I'm sure there are fart jokes that need to be made in other threads

/it's an imperative


But, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, there ARE laws that DO pertain to the political and electoral process. Judges enforce laws. Just because an issue comes up before a court that involves politics doesn't mean that judges shouldn't handle it. It's unavoidable...especially when one side decides to take the existing law (process and deadline for certifying an election) and turn it into a clown circus of court filings like Gore did in Florida.

In fact, I'd suggest that Justice Breyer's apparent opinion in that piece, that political issues that find their way to court, should be the province of the legislature, is insane. The very foundation of the government calls for separation of powers and yet here is a judge saying that the legislature should intervene and do the job of the judiciary when the issue involves politics...because the judges may be swayed by personal political stances? Really? And just what does he think the legislature will be swayed by? Sunshine and rainbows? The argument is incredible and entirely ridiculous.

You wrote the LSAT in 2000? Congrats. How did you do? I wrote it the week after I got back from my honeymoon in 1998 with zero study. How did you do?
 
2009-11-11 11:50:08 PM
What really galls me is all the nutcases that whine about "big government" in this case, both in the comments and on this thread... especially disturbing is the last line in the story (you can tell this is a Murdoch rag): "If there is a lesson from Connecticut's misfortune, it is that economic development that relies on the strong arm of government will never be the kind to create sustainable growth."

It seems that these morons haven't got the brain cells to realize that "the evil government" used its' powers of eminent domain ON BEHALF OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION CALLED PFIZER, who wanted this to happen. In other words, PFIZER used its' influence within the government to get what it wanted, just like corporations and private industry do every single day.

If there is a devil to be found in this matter, it's the people who make those little blue dick pills and the officials who gave into them, not government as an institution or as a power. Sometimes governments are the only tool society has to get done what needs to get done... but not in this case. This incident was not to society's benefit (as eminent domain should be), but to the benefit of a very small group of very rich men in very expensive offices who laugh at us very loudly while smoking very expensive cigars.
 
2009-11-12 12:06:54 AM
craig328: How did you do?

better than I did in law school
 
2009-11-12 12:14:35 AM
rewind2846:

I think the word you're looking for is collusion... or perhaps conspiring. There is Nothing Pfizer could have done without the express purchased consent of the lawyers in charge (the government). The problem isn't just Pfizer, it's ALL corporations and government (this isn't mutually exclusive, government is just as evil as the barons smoking cigars in the big offices). We have allowed (encouraged) government and big business to sleep together at our expense for decades. It knows no party affiliation, it knows no boundary, and it shows NO signs of slacking. This simply could not have happened without BOTH parties' participation. To exclude government from blame because you hate Pfizer (I do too, that's not the point) does a disservice to the truth, quite frankly. Sorry, but the government is now:

"By the corporations, for the corporations."
The government hasn't gotten its consent from the governed in a LONG time. You cannot simply blame 1/2 of the problem. It's BOTH government and Pfizer's fault. Additionally, it's OUR fault for allowing corporate interests to usurp OUR power as the boss of government. Fix it? Yes... VOTE. Too bad no one does.
 
2009-11-12 12:27:26 AM
mechafenris: Fix it? Yes... VOTE. Too bad no one does no one running wants to fix it so voting doesn't do a single damn bit of good.

FTFM
 
2009-11-12 12:33:57 AM
mechafenris:
"By the corporations, for the corporations." The government hasn't gotten its consent from the governed in a LONG time. You cannot simply blame 1/2 of the problem. It's BOTH government and Pfizer's fault. Additionally, it's OUR fault for allowing corporate interests to usurp OUR power as the boss of government. Fix it? Yes... VOTE. Too bad no one does.


I am definitely not absolving "government" of blame in this matter... but we must be careful not to paint "government" with such a broad brush that all semblance of rationality evaporates. My issue is with those who see all government as evil, and not just the morons that gave Pfizer its' license to steal. You are right about people not voting though... but the ones who do get out and vote all too frequently vote against their own long-term self or societal interest for either short-term gain or ideology (religious or otherwise), eschewing common sense and logic for sound bites and lies.

I do blame some parts of the government, but I hold Pfizer even more to blame for their hubris and greed in that they would see themselves as a part of that government and able to exert that much influence.
 
2009-11-12 12:53:41 AM
craig328: Sweet. Now I want you to count the number of words in your post agreeing with, or refuting, my implied contention that Bush v. Gore represented a troubling break with the doctrine of stari decisus, versus what represented the last chance you'll ever have to try and hurt me with your powerful internet words.
 
2009-11-12 05:00:19 AM
Gamer Grrrl: Okay, so this is the kind of government bullshiat that should piss off Americans.

Could not agree more.
 
2009-11-12 07:44:42 AM
Barbigazi: bongmiester: Kyosuke: Make fun of Texas if you must, but we did add this nice little amendment to our laws last election:
HJR 14 would amend the constitution to provide that the taking of private property for public use ("eminent domain") is authorized only if it is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, its political subdivisions, the public at large, or by entities granted the power of eminent domain, or for the removal of urban blight. The amendment would prohibit the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or to increase tax revenues. The amendment would also limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain in the future unless it is approved by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house.


That shiat ain't goin' down here.


unless your house is deemed "urban blight". seems like a big loop hole to me

Half of the cities in Texas could be described as "urban blight".


This. And I grew up here.
 
2009-11-12 08:38:07 AM
Rik01: I had no problem with eminent domain of the version used for the national good, like during war time or when they built Hoover dam to provide irrigation and power to hundreds of thousands of people.

HOWEVER, to take someone's property for a shopping mall or business which is only going to benefit a few, using the same process, I consider an abuse of power which is criminal.


THISNed Stark: Marxist

Non-Marxist socialism was called fascism, Corporatism (see Portugal, Spain it doesn't mean what you think it does), Peronism. All had relatively "socialist" elements in them. They have largely been discredited.

Then you have Western Europe's Socialism lite where they have state own corporations with monopolies over many industries in that country. At least until the late 1980 and early 90s when they started to divest themselves from these enterprises. Too much social and political engineering, the government was always sinking money into them. So even the socialists in Europe used corporations to protect themselves. Yes I lived there for a time.
 
2009-11-12 08:48:32 AM
jesdynf: craig328: Sweet. Now I want you to count the number of words in your post agreeing with, or refuting, my implied contention that Bush v. Gore represented a troubling break with the doctrine of stari decisus, versus what represented the last chance you'll ever have to try and hurt me with your powerful internet words.


What...DexeTroll® isn't working?

Listen clown, I was engaging you in debate. You went full retard with that whole tantrum about giving me one chance (thanks for that condescension BTW...oh sorry...big word there) and then pimping your cute little greasemonkey script. As for your "assignment", forget it. I've already explained my position sufficiently in words any educated person can easily comprehend. I'll not dumb it down so even the barrel scrapings of this thread can figure it out. There are "big words" after all.

Seriously, put me on your big bad ban list. DexeTroll® me already because you'll be doing yourself a favor. I use big meaningful words a lot and I really don't want anyone getting hurt by them.
 
2009-11-12 09:18:44 AM
craig328: Judges enforce laws. Just because an issue comes up before a court that involves politics doesn't mean that judges shouldn't handle it. It's unavoidable...especially when one side decides to take the existing law (process and deadline for certifying an election) and turn it into a clown circus of court filings like Gore did in Florida.

Quack quack.

Justices against the judicial process! I've got an idea! Let's make a bigger clown circus!

None of the real lawyers I know think the decision was anything but naked politics.
 
2009-11-12 09:39:55 AM
Corporate greed woudn't mean shiat in this case if it weren't for a bullshiat, socialist-type government rule like eminent domain.
 
2009-11-12 09:40:47 AM
sseye: None of the real lawyers I know think the decision was anything but naked politics.

Oh. Well. That decides it then I suppose. "Lawyers you know". Thanks for bringing that conversational hammer to close out this little debate. Good luck in all your future endeavors.
 
2009-11-12 09:42:06 AM
doubled99: Corporate greed woudn't mean shiat in this case if it weren't for a bullshiat, socialist-type government rule like eminent domain.

Except for the fact that eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment.
 
2009-11-12 09:45:33 AM
doubled99: Corporate greed woudn't mean shiat in this case if it weren't for a bullshiat, socialist-type government rule like eminent domain.


Eminent domain has it's place. That place however should not be where it was in Kelo. What Kelo did was expand what a government exercising eminent domain rights could use for a definition for what would collectively benefit the community. Increased tax rates, in my opinion, is NOT a valid excuse for depriving someone of their property. The more liberal justices on the SC disagree however.

An entirely awful precedent to set...but then again, it did prompt many states and communities to pass laws to more narrowly define what qualifies as a reason to use eminent domain...and that's a good thing.
 
2009-11-12 10:21:57 AM
craig328: doubled99: Corporate greed woudn't mean shiat in this case if it weren't for a bullshiat, socialist-type government rule like eminent domain.


Eminent domain has it's place. That place however should not be where it was in Kelo. What Kelo did was expand what a government exercising eminent domain rights could use for a definition for what would collectively benefit the community. Increased tax rates, in my opinion, is NOT a valid excuse for depriving someone of their property. The more liberal justices on the SC disagree however.

An entirely awful precedent to set...but then again, it did prompt many states and communities to pass laws to more narrowly define what qualifies as a reason to use eminent domain...and that's a good thing.


THIS all around. Eminent Domain has its uses. The Kelo case opens a whole new can of worms.
 
2009-11-12 10:30:17 AM
Barbigazi: bongmiester: Kyosuke: Make fun of Texas if you must, but we did add this nice little amendment to our laws last election:
HJR 14 would amend the constitution to provide that the taking of private property for public use ("eminent domain") is authorized only if it is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, its political subdivisions, the public at large, or by entities granted the power of eminent domain, or for the removal of urban blight. The amendment would prohibit the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or to increase tax revenues. The amendment would also limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain in the future unless it is approved by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house.


That shiat ain't goin' down here.


unless your house is deemed "urban blight". seems like a big loop hole to me

Half of the cities in Texas could be described as "urban blight".


You probably haven't been to New York, go there if you want to see statewide urban blight, and the biggest assholes in the world live there.
 
2009-11-12 10:33:00 AM
yakmans_dad: ghare: I find it hard to get worked up over a Supreme Court decision that said "It's up to the state."

This.

The power of eminent domain is in the Constitution. Conservatives claim to support federalism, but every time something else they want gets in the way, that "something else" becomes much more important.


The left doesn't even pretend to acknowledge that federalism is part of the Constitution, so it is not surprising you don't understand the concept. It is also not surprising you don't acknowledge the concept of personal property.
 
2009-11-12 12:37:36 PM

There wasn't much of a neighborhood there to begin with. What local business was there went south when the Navy research center closed. Plus the city sewage treatment plants are right there. One resident painted over an unused billboard one day:


I think that it is heinous
To be forced to smell
New London's anus


At least they covered the treatment tanks when Pfizer moved in.
 
2009-11-12 12:39:17 PM
Rodddxl,

The left doesn't pretend to acknolwedge federalism? Oh right, all because you wanted to own slaves and didn't want the feds getting involved... damn those heavy handed morality policemen
 
2009-11-12 02:12:11 PM
arsenaldb: ne2d: KatjaMouse: howdyyall9999: icy_one: subaudio: Oliver Twisted: Kelo v. City of New London

Worst. Decision. Ever.

Dred Scott v. Sandford?
Bush v. Gore?
Plessy v. Ferguson?

Brown vs Board of Education?

/what?
//too soon?

University of California Regents v. Bakke

So is this a greatest hits thread now?

Sure, why not?

Buck v. Bell (still good law--cited by Roe v. Wade)

Johnson v. M'Intosh


I gotta go "all in" with Hardwick v. Bowers.

Bow-chicka-bow-bow....
 
2009-11-12 04:01:15 PM
Rodddxl: yakmans_dad: ghare: I find it hard to get worked up over a Supreme Court decision that said "It's up to the state."

This.

The power of eminent domain is in the Constitution. Conservatives claim to support federalism, but every time something else they want gets in the way, that "something else" becomes much more important.

The left doesn't even pretend to acknowledge that federalism is part of the Constitution, so it is not surprising you don't understand the concept. It is also not surprising you don't acknowledge the concept of personal property.


You just made stuff up. Why would you argue that way?
 
2009-11-12 06:21:34 PM
yakmans_dad: Rodddxl: yakmans_dad: ghare: I find it hard to get worked up over a Supreme Court decision that said "It's up to the state."

This.

The power of eminent domain is in the Constitution. Conservatives claim to support federalism, but every time something else they want gets in the way, that "something else" becomes much more important.

The left doesn't even pretend to acknowledge that federalism is part of the Constitution, so it is not surprising you don't understand the concept. It is also not surprising you don't acknowledge the concept of personal property.

You just made stuff up. Why would you argue that way?


Argue? I was just pointing out the painfully obvious facts.
 
2009-11-13 08:07:20 AM
Rodddxl: yakmans_dad: Rodddxl: yakmans_dad: ghare: I find it hard to get worked up over a Supreme Court decision that said "It's up to the state."

This.

The power of eminent domain is in the Constitution. Conservatives claim to support federalism, but every time something else they want gets in the way, that "something else" becomes much more important.

The left doesn't even pretend to acknowledge that federalism is part of the Constitution, so it is not surprising you don't understand the concept. It is also not surprising you don't acknowledge the concept of personal property.

You just made stuff up. Why would you argue that way?

Argue? I was just pointing out the painfully obvious facts.


That's venal or stupid.
 
2009-11-13 02:44:52 PM
yakmans_dad: Rodddxl: yakmans_dad: Rodddxl: yakmans_dad: ghare: I find it hard to get worked up over a Supreme Court decision that said "It's up to the state."

This.

The power of eminent domain is in the Constitution. Conservatives claim to support federalism, but every time something else they want gets in the way, that "something else" becomes much more important.

The left doesn't even pretend to acknowledge that federalism is part of the Constitution, so it is not surprising you don't understand the concept. It is also not surprising you don't acknowledge the concept of personal property.

You just made stuff up. Why would you argue that way?

Argue? I was just pointing out the painfully obvious facts.

That's venal or stupid.


The fact that the left doesn't understand federalism and the concept of personal property? Yes, they are stupid.
 
Displayed 37 of 437 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report