Do liberal judges favor wealthy developers over regular people?

I think we disagree only in degree. I see both sides as haveing poopooed the constitution and taking advantage of the poor.But that's the game. You can't be a good person to be in polatics, its counter productive. By definition it's a machevelian enterprise.

But it doesn't matter what the conservatives think; what matters is what the Court as a whole thinks.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I will focus on commercial radio.The changes that permit relatively few huge broadcast companies ("wealthy developers") to own vast numbers of commercial radio stations has resulted in the airwaves being blanketed by crappy homogenous radio, that poorly serves the local interests. I think the signing of the law permitting such was Bill Clinton's greatest presidential failure. I believe there is currently a lawsuit going on in Chicago over this.This is why the public non-commercial radio stations and networks are so important.Moose

Yea, agreed, but you leave out one of the reasons they allowed this. With newer technologies such as satellite radio, internet radio, etc,....there is a whole new wave of independent competition on the horizon and so the concern over a monopoly here had been lessened.In the short term, I agree that it has made radio much worse. In the long run, I think it will actually help the little guy because radio does suck so bad, people will be more likely to turn to the new radio over the internet, wireless internet too, and satellite radio.

I'm not sure what the point was of telling me this.1) I know it already and doesn't counter anything I said. And indeed I have already stated that I agree with the conservatives in this decision.2) The liberal's decision was not socialist, in that socialists would generally not hand over public property for a private enterprise to make private profits.3) What the conservatives suggested was a form of socialism. I am uncertain how you get that their decision supporting the right of the state to take property for public use is not socialism?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It's socialist to weaken private property rights. The conservatives voted to maintain private property rights and so the conservatives were not socialist here.But you are correct that cooperating with private developers in conjunction with the state is not pure socialism. It is more properly fascism, but imo, fascism is a form of socialism to a degree. The state dominates with the right to do whatever it wants, but uses private enterprise to accomplish it's goals.So perhaps fascism is better thought of as a hybrid of socialism and capitalism. Imo, the ruling was fascist in nature and reflected a fascist view of property rights.

Okay let me be more clear. Their ruling itself upheld property rights. I was suggesting that as long as their reasoning included the ability of society to remove property for public use, the reasoning would have socialist connotations.I would also like to add that socialism does not necessarily mean no property rights, though it often includes limits to such rights. That is something we can agree on completely.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If socialism is where the government takes control of the means of production, and fascism is where those who own the means of production take control of the government; well, is that a fundamental divide between those extremes? Or is that six of one and a half-dozen of the other?

I think a miracle has occurred.

Fascism is not Big Business taking control of the government but the government taking control of Big Business as it's senior partner.

KELO v. NEW LONDON [04-108] | FindLawNot taking any sides here, I haven't read the article OR the ruling, just thought that the rulings might make a better case for or against than a news article.This message has been edited by Asgara, 11-17-2005 06:50 PM

---

Asgara
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

From your link, the first paragraph of the ruling."In 2000, the city of New London approved a development plan that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was "projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas." 268 Conn. 1, 5, 843 A. 2d 500, 507 (2004). In assembling the land needed for this project, the city's development agent has purchased property from willing sellers and proposes to use the power of eminent domain to acquire the remainder of the property from unwilling owners in exchange for just compensation. The question presented is whether the city's proposed disposition of this property qualifies as a "public use" within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.1"The issue is therefore clearly about the Fifth Amendment, and the liberals once again have rewritten part of the Constitution to mean something, in this case the opposite, of what it clearly originally meant to convey.

quote:

---

The liberals once again have rewritten part of the Constitution to mean something, in this case the opposite, of what it clearly originally meant to convey.

---

If it was all that clear, then it wouldn't have made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I disagree. I think it's very clear. The ruling changed "public use" to "all uses including private uses public officials endorse."

quote:

---

I think it's very clear.

---

When you're finally sitting on the Supreme Court, then your opinion will be relevant.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt