It doesn't take a big contribution. Pick your comfort level and
please join others to help put the FReepathon to rest. Thank you.
Posted on 02/26/2016 12:36:58 PM PST by reaganaut1
The death of Justice Antonin Scalia catalyzed an effusion of commentary regarding his replacement on the Court.
Leftist writers are arguing that President Obama should nominate someone for the vacant seat and the Senate should confirm that nominee. If the GOP-controlled Senate doesn’t cooperate, that will supposedly turn into a potent issue in the election because the Democratic voting base will be so energized at being deprived the sort of liberal judge Obama is certain to pick.
Perhaps that will turn out to be true.
But there is a hidden assumption that deserves examination, namely that “liberal†judges will decide cases in ways that favor Democratic voters, while “conservative†judges will decide cases contrary to their interests.
That idea is generally false.
In truth, conservative judges (i.e., those who consistently take a jurisprudential approach that restricts governmental power) often rule in favor of “the little guy,†whereas liberal judges often rule contrary to their interests. That is not because liberal judges secretly dislike the often poor and powerless litigants who want the government to leave them alone. Nor is it because conservative judges are, despite all the nasty rhetoric about them, actually the friends of such individuals.
The explanation, rather, relates to the great vault line in American politics.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
The fact is, as Cruz has noted repeatedly, that Democrats bat almost 1.000 in getting justices who support their party line and do exactly what they want, while Republicans are under .500.
Which is all the more reason that we need a strong constitutionalist, not just a Republican (especially a “progressive”, “populist” Republican) in the White House.
Sure this article will convince them /s
There is a hidden false assumption in this article: that liberals care about “the little guy”. They never have and never will. If they did, they couldn’t be liberals.
Every candidate from Cruz to Sanders opposes that decision -- except one: Donald J. Trump, the crony capitalist who benefitted personally from this misuse of eminent domain.
They want whatever Justice is going to find a “right” to health care and income in the Constitution.
There is a war upon words waged by the left, the first victim was infact the word liberal. There is nothing liberal about the totalitarian government power over everything that defines modern ‘liberals’.
Their similar war on the word ‘marriage’ is simply a more consequential lie that undermines the very foundation of our families and thus also the reproductive stability of our race and civilization.
The collapse of which ironically favors totalitarianism given how it forces people to look to the state for the ‘stability’ they can’t get in their nonexistence family.
I am a Cruz fan, but The State power of eminent domain comes from the State Not Federal Constitution. That Separate State eminent domain power could very well could permit private uses.
In the long run thou, it is very little difference you can’t expect land eminent domained by a government to forever be bared from private use. As the Constitution is silent on how long such land must be in federal control, its really a technicality that the federal government would immediately resell the land to a private party.
The only reasonable and fair thing to do is to give the original owner first right to rebuy the property at original value.
Still none of this applies to any State which is separately authorized by its people to uses such powers in their own constitution. The legality of the action Trump benefited from are the subject of New Jersey’s constitution.
The government is allowed to take land (with just compensation) for public use, such as roads, schools, post offices, hospitals, and the like. It is not supposed to do so just to turn it over to some private entity that will make a bigger profit just so the government can collect higher taxes.
The Washington Beltway was a public use. Your kid’s school is a public use. A casino is NOT.
In practice, higher (taxable) land value is deemed to be "higher use", so the local government is on the side of the bulldozers and will not rest until every square inch of the United States is buried under 30-story office towers and condos.
Big buildings are cash registers and have many worshipers in government as well as in business.
That is still private use and not a proper use of eminent domain.
I wanted to know what government you referred to. State and Federal Governments are entirely different with separate and distinct grants of power.
The people can let their state do whatever they want their state to be able to do, as the state’s grant of authority from the people is independent from that of Washington.
I would agree with you on The federal government’s eminent domain power. But State power is whatever the people authorize their State to do in the State Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.