Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 06/27/2005 View Sun 06/26/2005 View Sat 06/25/2005 View Fri 06/24/2005 View Thu 06/23/2005 View Wed 06/22/2005 View Tue 06/21/2005
1
2005-06-27 Home Front: Politix
My opinion letter re: SCOTUS Kelo decision
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Dar 2005-06-27 11:20|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 There is, obviously, some confusion regards the role of SCOTUS. Simply put, it's not the Pretty Nifty Court or even the Federal Final Word Court - it's the Supreme Court - its rulings trump - from sea to shining sea, period. That's why it's called the Supreme Court.

All law in the US, whether local, state or federal, must (if challenged - an interesting point for the lawyers to play with) be constitutional. I think most here "get it" in that regard. If a law is challenged and found unconsitutional, it is void, null, dead. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means. When they rule upon a case, they are interpreting the meaning of the Consitution. Once a ruling is issued, unless superceded by a subsequent Constitutional Ammendment or further "interpreted" by a later Supreme Court ruling, henceforth, that is what the Constitution means.

News Flash: Supreme Court rulings supercede all levels of law throughout the US. If there is a law on the books anywhere in the US, local, state, or federal, that conflicts with a Supreme Court Ruling - it is defacto unconstitutional. Once a ruling is issued, all courts, whether local, state, or federal, are BOUND by that ruling and will NOT find contrary to such a ruling. It is the same as if it was spelled out in the Constitution. There is no recourse, anywhere, period, to a Supreme Court ruling other than by Amendment to the Constitution.

'zat clear enough?

Regards the Kelo Ruling, any level of Govt can force sale, through eminent domain, of any private entity's property to another entity, private or public, if they deem it to be of benefit to the public. And that can be for something as simple as the new owner promises to build ("upgrade" - per the ruling) something that will generate more tax revenue, thus meeting the, now, almost sole criteria of being of benefit to the public.

If any level of government employs eminent domain to take your home or business, regardless of whether the sale is to a public or private entity, there is no recourse save this:

The ONLY criteria that appears to be of standing per the ruling is the perceived public benefit. You would have to show a greater public benefit than the sale would produce in order to get a court to accept a case contesting the sale.

No law or court, at any level, stands against a SCOTUS ruling. Any contrary law is defacto unconstitutional and no court, at any level, will rule contrary to a Supreme Court ruling - as it is guaranteed to be overturned. Period. End of story.

'zat clear enough?
Posted by .com 2005-06-27 12:13||   2005-06-27 12:13|| Front Page Top

#2 Bitch, whine, etc.

As long as you're not going to make them accountable to the people [derive their powers from the direct consent of the govern] you'll going to be hammered by your 'betters'. Even in the non-technology era of 1776, it didn't take this long for, what would be, the founding fathers to figure out that power without accountability results in tyranny. There are no 'better' judges and just waiting for appointments isn't the solution. Senators were not directly elected by the populus until the XVII admendment a hundred years ago. It is past time all parts of government be subject to the consent of the govern.
Posted by Omise Sholuting9208 2005-06-27 12:26||   2005-06-27 12:26|| Front Page Top

#3 Still don't make it right .com. Unless you are of the "legal=moral" school of thought, which I happen to know you are not.

Posted by Secret Master 2005-06-27 14:04||   2005-06-27 14:04|| Front Page Top

#4 SM - Oh, no - I think the Kelo decision is insane, a socialist's wet dream. It guts one of the keystones of our Constitution. There will be hell to pay for this before it's all said and, especially, done. I have no difficulty imagining someone could even die defending his property.

I wrote what I did because there was some talk about the separation between State and Federal Law - with State trumping Federal, yadda3 -- guaranteed to confuse people. It needed clarification. Nothing trumps a SCOTUS ruling.

Additionally, the Supreme Court only takes cases where it is determined that new law is being set, thus requiring their interpretation, or old law is being applied in a manner that opens new legal ground, also requiring their interpretation. Such "new" legal precedents require a ruling regards constitutionality -- which puts to rest the other major talking point I kept seeing that this has always happened and there was nothing new in the decision. Wrong - that's why SCOTUS accepted the case.

The Constitution trumps all other laws.

SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the Constitution's meaning.

Q.E.D.

Pisses me off more than I can say, I assure you. And I believe that, unless somehow strictly moderated or re-interpreted, it will be challenged physically, since all other recourse is denied. Those 5 Justices have declared open season on private property. Not many other things could generate the vehement response that I believe is coming. It will start small, a case here and there, but once the local and State Govts realize just what they've been handed, it will blossom into a major land grab with deadly consequences. Who's to stop them?
Posted by .com 2005-06-27 15:52||   2005-06-27 15:52|| Front Page Top

#5 Well Al Gore invented the internet and the Supreme Court is doing it's best to destroy it:

"The Supreme Court gave the entertainment industry a new legal weapon for fighting Internet privacy, ruling today that Web companies that encourage computer users to download free copies of music or movies can be held liable for the industry's losses.
The 9-0 ruling may be the most important copyright decision of the Internet era.
The justices firmly rejected the view that computer companies and software makers have a right to freely share copyrighted music and movies online.
Instead, they said these companies are guilty of violating the copyright laws if they make a business out of helping others make free copies of protected works."

So what's next? Blocking the CTRL+C keys on your keyboard? No more right mouse clicks to save "copyrighted" pics?
Posted by True German Ally 2005-06-27 16:26||   2005-06-27 16:26|| Front Page Top

#6 Well said, TGA. I believe the MPAA / RIAA must have the best legal team on the planet. They get everything they want and win every case no matter how obtuse. And, with this one, the software companies, from Microsoft on down to the guys peddling DSS code, will be jointly liable for whatever wild-assed number the MPAA / RIAA dreams up.

They figured it out - go for the deep pockets.

I've never seen addressed, in any of these court cases, the absolute fact that most people (who swap movies, for instance,) would NOT have paid for the privilege - making the "lost revenues" figures bandied about total fiction.
Posted by .com 2005-06-27 16:45||   2005-06-27 16:45|| Front Page Top

#7 Well .com, I don't expect the copyright mafia to be expropriated for the common good, right?

Of course MPAA/RIAA indulge in total fiction. They could as well sue radio stations for playing a song too often, because people don't buy it anymore.

I tell you a funny example. This winter a very stupid, but somewhat endearing children's song abou a young crocodile was circulated on Kazaa and the like. No CD had been made. It got downloaded 1000000s of times for what reason ever. A radio station discovered the song and soon it became popular in the airwaves. Only now a CD was made and sold and despite the fact that most people had already downloaded the song (and it continued to be available), the CD sold over a million copies.

The truth is that people don't buy most movies or films they like, and even less of what they download. They buy that SPECIAL one, for what reasons ever. How many records could you afford as a teen? How many CDs can a student buy?

Most songs that I ... umm...would download are songs I couldn't even buy if I wanted to.

Music marketing is as mafioso as it comes. You want two or three songs of a group and you are FORCED to buy ten, at ridiculously inflated prices. Except for the big stars the musicians hardly get 5% of the sale.

When they showed a press preview of Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" they filmed the moviegoers during the entire session with infrared cameras to make sure nobody uses a device to film or photograph.

The music industry now sells crippled copy protected CDs that won't even play in my car, let alone on my computer.

MPAA/RIAA treat their customers as enemies and potential thieves. Let's return the favor.

I did. I don't buy copy protected Cds.
Posted by True German Ally 2005-06-27 17:06||   2005-06-27 17:06|| Front Page Top

#8 .com - State law can't trump Federal law or Constitution, but there's another wrinkle here. The law on eminent domain in CT is one of the 4 or 5 most sweeping in the nation. In the other 45 or so states, a local government couldn't do what New London did in Kelo because their state law wouldn't permit it. Kelo doesn't require all states to adopt the CT standard. It does permit them to, which is bad enough.

My guess is that a lot more states will be tightening their laws rather than broadening them in the next few years. If not, our status as a free nation is gone.
Posted by VAMark 2005-06-27 17:15||   2005-06-27 17:15|| Front Page Top

#9 It appears the SCOTUS is actually the court of the Corperate Rich, screw the US Constution. Can you imagine this is considered to be a "conservative" court. Imagine what it would be like if Hillary stacked it with liberals?

I lost respect for the "law" along time ago. There is no "law" or justice here. We are heading down the tubes.
Posted by Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-06-27 17:19||   2005-06-27 17:19|| Front Page Top

#10 "Most songs that I ... umm...would download are songs I couldn't even buy if I wanted to."

Lol - got you hesitating to even say it! And I agree completely - the price for getting old - all our stuff is "out of print" damnit!

You're absolutely right - people buy what "hits the spot" - something they believe they'll never tire of and, most likely, has been associated with something positive. That, to me, explains why a song that gets heavy air-play still sells - it evokes a good feeling... and still will 10 years later. Why I still get that certain "funny feeling" (Lol!) when I hear certain tunes from my fogged-windows back-seat days, lol! Faces and, umm, other things, jump out from deep memories... Went to the drive-in and couldn't see a damned thing within 10 minutes of parking - but not a word of complaint, lol!

I won't buy protected goods, either - and that eliminates all of the DVD's. But there's even a way around that, too, and I don't mean cracking their protection scheme - there's a much simpler way. Sigh, I wish it was copacetic to put a live email out there, but I refuse to be a target for the trolls I feed on, or get spidered by some bot.
Posted by .com 2005-06-27 17:25||   2005-06-27 17:25|| Front Page Top

#11 I think it's time for a new amendment, one that removes the Supreme court from the United States Constitution.
Posted by Silentbrick">Silentbrick  2005-06-27 17:30||   2005-06-27 17:30|| Front Page Top

#12 I hope you're right VAMark. Unfortunately, I bet you're not.
Posted by Secret Master 2005-06-27 17:31||   2005-06-27 17:31|| Front Page Top

#13 VAMark - Think about it. If the law says eminent domain is limited - in ANY way contrary to the SCOTUS ruling, it can (and will) be challenged by someone who wants to do the same thing as in the Kelo case. So the law will be challenged - initially in state court. You're a judge of the court. What is your duty? Uphold a restrictive State Law which is contrary to a Supreme Court decision? Not fucking likely.

I repeat:

The Constitution is the a priori Law of the Land. It trumps everything.

SCOTUS is the sole arbiter for interpreting what it means. Their rulings trump everything.

And the restrictive law? If contrary to a SCOTUS ruling it is defacto unconstitutional. NO court will knowingly rule contrary to a SCOTUS ruling.

The complainant, wanting to challenge the lack of eminent domain action when he/she can demonstrate that it will be "for the public benefit" because of, for example, higher tax generation, will simply challenge the constitutionality of the law. And it will fall before this SCOTUS ruling.

You are not protected. Geez, I'm running out of different ways to say it. I surrender. I quit. We shall see, won't we?
Posted by .com 2005-06-27 17:37||   2005-06-27 17:37|| Front Page Top

#14 Its just an uncloaking..
same line as my other posting on the same topic.

The commie/socialist creed:


What's MINE is MINE!
What's your's is MINE!
Posted by 3dc 2005-06-27 18:05||   2005-06-27 18:05|| Front Page Top

#15 All your laws (and property, and rights, and recourse, and redress) are belong to us.
Posted by .SCOTUS Thingy 2005-06-27 18:09||   2005-06-27 18:09|| Front Page Top

#16 SPoD -- Initially I thought you were wrong about this being a supposedly conservative court until I did a little research and learned that 7 of the 9 were appointed by Republican presidents!

The dissenters in this case were O'Connor (appointed by Reagan), Rehnquist (Nixon), Thomas (Bush 41), and Scalia (Reagan).

Stevens (Ford), Kennedy (Reagan), Souter (Bush 41), Ginsburg (Clinton), and Breyer (Clinton) were the majority that passed this crap that continues the trend of shredding our Constitution.

At least Clinton can be satisfied with his cronies furthering the socialist agenda!

As a side note, I got a call from the PP-G. They're considering my letter for publication!
Posted by Dar">Dar  2005-06-27 18:41||   2005-06-27 18:41|| Front Page Top

#17 This was just another way of pushing aside those pesky little people, who hold out to the bitter end, in hopes of landing a big fat check from that big fat land developer. Anyone who has read about Trump's real estate deals in Atlantic City and New York City, will know what I'm talking about.

Trouble is, that's how it's supposed to be, isn't it, in the land of the free? If you want something of mine really badly... pay for it!! Or build your way around it (as Trump did in some cases).

Well now SCOTUS has screwed those pesky little people, getting rid of that headache once and for all, leaving it for the local cops to deal the final blow (the eviction, the inevitable shoot outs, etc, etc). Glorious day for communism.
Posted by Rafael 2005-06-27 22:57||   2005-06-27 22:57|| Front Page Top

23:52 Frank G
23:43 Frank G
23:39 Frank G
23:34 Mike Kozlowski
22:57 Rafael
22:52 Phil Fraering
22:41 Frank G
22:34 jules 2
22:23 trailing wife
22:21 JosephMendiola
22:14 eLarson
22:12 trailing wife
22:12 Frank G
22:11 trailing wife
21:47 Mr. hen pecked
21:43 trailing wife
21:37 trailing wife
21:36 Prince Esa
21:32 Red Dog
21:27 JosephMendiola
21:23 Mike Kozlowski
21:19 Red Dog
21:19 Mike Kozlowski
21:18 trailing wife









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com