Are we living in a Democracy or not?

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 12:34pm

Now, the Supreme Court says it's okay for big business to come in and throw people out of their own homes!

What the hell is going on?
Supreme Court Desision

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 12:36pm

Actually, no we don't live in a Democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. It's an error that many people make.

[robbiej]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 12:40pm

Including our own president.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 12:42pm

Yeah, a Constitutional Republic. One in which our judiciary should not be subject to the political whims of a particular ruling party.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 12:53pm

No, the mistake our lame-duck president makes is that he thinks we're living in a theocratic oligarchy.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 1:01pm

This is going to get ugly. It's not going to surprise me that people are going to be using their right to bear arms to protect their homes.

Along the same lines…

I checked into one of my gay websites this morning and every picture that was considered “adult” was “temporarily unavailable for viewing” due to an act of Congress.

This government is just pissing all over the Consitution.

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 1:06pm

"I checked into one of my gay websites this morning and every picture that was considered 'adult' was “temporarily unavailable for viewing” due to an act of Congress."

Hmmm....can't until Billy Bob in the Red States can't access HIS porn.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 1:12pm

It wasn't a porn site. It's Gay.com. You should go check it out. Click on someones profile and the pictures are gone with a link to a page with the full story.

I guess Congress feels they can now control the internet as well.

[cturtle]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 1:17pm

what the ... ???

Posted: 6/23/05 at 1:35pm

Oh man, Diva I can't wait to get home and check out Gay.com! That is one story I have to read!

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 2:03pm

Here's just the opening:


Gay.com Help
CENSORED! BY US GOVERNMENT!
Changes to our photo policy mandated by the Bush Administration
Always on the lookout for hot guys and ways to keep people from having fun, the US Dept. of Justice is taking a break from prosecuting terrorists to do something they think is more important: restricting your right to view and share photos online.

All member photos identified as adult on our site are temporarily unavailable for public view, due to the sudden, and unconstitutional, decision by the US Dept. of Justice to place new restrictions on all web sites around the world that do business in the US (I guess nobody ever told them the internet is borderless). Gay.com thinks your adult photos should be sexy, secure, and legally protected, so we've joined with other companies to seek an injunction against this ruling. We're doing everything possible to minimize its impact on you.

[yodamarie78]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 2:08pm

That is insane! I guess I should have known they'd finally get around to censoring the Internet. I guess CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act) wasn't enough.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 2:55pm

As DGrant likes to quote me saying:

It could never happen here. Unless it's happening already.

Updated On: 6/23/05 at 02:55 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 3:10pm

Well, the government has ALWAYS had the power of eminent domain, going back centuries. That's how we got the highway system and the railroads and many schools, parks, dams and bridges and stadiums in this country -- the government would choose the land it wanted/needed, compensate the owners and then take over the property.

The distinction with this case is that in the past, the government had to be able to show a good "public purpose" for seizing the land (economic redevelopment, urban renewal, municipal exigencies, etc...). This decision clears the way for governments to seize property for purely private development and commercial exploitation, thereby increasing tax revenues.

Interesting that the so-called liberal/moderate wing of the court -- Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Kennedy and Breyer -- were the majority on this one, while Thomas, Scalia et al were on the side of the private homeowners.

Updated On: 6/23/05 at 03:10 PM

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 3:33pm

Here is what the majority said in part:
Cites deleted:

Putting aside the unpersuasive suggestion that the City's plan will provide only purely economic benefits, neither precedent nor logic supports petitioners' proposal. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government. There is, moreover, no principled way of distinguishing economic development from the other public purposes that we have recognized. In our cases upholding takings that facilitated agriculture and mining, for example, we emphasized the importance of those industries to the welfare of the States in question, see, e.g., Strickley, ; in Berman, we endorsed the purpose of transforming a blighted area into a "well-balanced" community through redevelopment, in Midkiff, we upheld the interest in breaking up a land oligopoly that "created artificial deterrents to the normal functioning of the State's residential land market," ; and in Monsanto, we accepted Congress' purpose of eliminating a "significant barrier to entry in the pesticide market," It would be incongruous to hold that the City's interest in the economic benefits to be derived from the development of the Fort Trumbull area has less of a public character than any of those other interests. Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose.

[justthefacts2]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 8:01pm

I never thought I would say these words in my lifetime, but I am with you on this, TheatreDiva! I heard about the Supreme Court - Private Developers decision on the car radio today, and I wanted to fire off a cannon!! It seems like the Supreme Court is determined to erode the rights of the individual - stuff we fought for in the Revolution, for God's sake!! Private Developers - what a joke!!! Can you imagine how easy it is for them to pay off the right public official and suddenly their project enhances the public good - and people's homes can be seized? Where will it stop? No, this can't happen!! Enough of those guys!! Do something about the Supreme Court - please!!!!

[grizzabella]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 8:13pm

Theatrediva, Justthefacts2, and others, you are all so right. Sadly, this country is becoming a place ruled by the rich, for the rich, and preferably the far-Right-wing rich. That this administration is also looking to pack the Supreme Court with more justices who share such views is no accident.

[Mythus]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 8:15pm

I'd get a kick out bulldozing their houses, see how they like it.

[justthefacts2]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 8:46pm

Here's a link (or address, at least) to the background of this case, if you're interested. It's from February.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/21/scotus.eminent.domain/

[justthefacts2]

Posted: 6/23/05 at 9:08pm

John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. Here's the breakdown of the justices for and against and decision (they may be a surprise to some of you) - I got this from The Washington Post:

"Stevens added that "because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment."

He was joined in that view by justices Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Dissenting were justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as well as Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

In a strongly worded dissenting opinion, O'Connor wrote that the majority's decision overturns a long-held principle that eminent domain cannot be used simply to transfer property from one private owner to another."