The three biggest Supreme Court decison disasters in the last 11 years.

[techs]

We're talking about the precedents they set, not whether you disagree with the decision in the particular case. It's the principles the decisions set which will now be applied to the judicial system.


1) Judges do not have recuse themselves from cases when they have received either campaign contributions or actual goods and services.
Imagine that you could have a dispute with someone and you go to court and the judge got a 500,000 dollar campaign contribution from your adversay. Plus the judge flies on your adversaries plane for an all expense paid vacation. Would you trust that judge?

2) A political candidate can stop a recount if he is ahead by claiming the recount would "damage" him. This was the most ridiculous justification of a Supreme Court decision ever. It is laughed about in law schools. The SCOTUS could have picked any number of other principles (say, that you can't just recount a few counties, you have to recount them all, etc). Instead they chose to make a decision that made no sense. In the future, we might find that recounts can no longer occur, because as soon as one starts the politician ahead will claim the recount will damage them.

3) Corporations are "persons" under the law.
Well this one is just ridiculous. We are now going to see all the wacky lawsuits over personal "rights" we have seen people file over the last 40 years, now filed by corporations with huge law firms behind them.


Funny thing. I guess Republicans only hate activist judges when they are liberal and sane.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Did the talking points memo from the DNC come out with attack the supreme court mandate? Does Tim Kaine fire off an email and you all jump into lockstep?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I note that you didn't mention that government can displace people from their homes because they can get higher taxes from a strip mall. They noted that Congress could address that.

So when did they fix this, and do you support that action?

 

[techs]

I note that you didn't mention that government can displace people from their homes because they can get higher taxes from a strip mall. They noted that Congress could address that.

So when did they fix this, and do you support that action?

What you talking 'bout, Willis?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What you talking 'bout, Willis?

Here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Note that the staunchly conservative pro corporate Ginsberg sided with the majority.

 

[techs]

Here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Note that the staunchly conservative pro corporate Ginsberg sided with the majority.

Oh, you mean the decision the Supreme Court made when it said the Court could not be expected to evaluate the financial merits of every case of the use of "eminent domain" and that in the particular case it only had to be shown there was reasonable ground to apply it?
And that the Court said it was up to States and Localities spell out the rules of Eminent Domain, which they subsequently did?

Or do you mean that the Supreme Court realized that if they supported Kelo than no bridges, or roads might ever be built again?

Yeah, I noticed how badly that affected everyone./sarcasm

Of course, the decision on corporated political donations is having a huge impact this year. The decision in the election of 2000 gave us the worst President ever, and the decision that judges don't need to recuse themselves may not have shown its effects yet, but it will perhaps be the biggest booboo since we have already seen SCOTUS taking bribes.

 

[CallMeJoe]

I note that you didn't mention that government can displace people from their homes because they can get higher taxes from a strip mall. They noted that Congress could address that.
So when did they fix this, and do you support that action?

Constitutionally, the New London decision was not patently incorrect; Common Law gives government the use of Eminent Domain, but the Constitution states only "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." "Public use" is not defined in the Constitution, and in this case the Court defers to State and Local governments to determine what "Public Use" is.

I would like to see this issue addressed legislatively at Federal and State levels to better define "Public Use", to prevent the kind of (IMHO) unjustifiable condemnation of private property that New London conducted.

 

[spidey07]

Funny. I thought the ruling that the 2nd amendment IS incorporated and is a basic civil right and shall be treated as such was the biggest.

Not to mention upholding freedom of speech against government censorship, that was pretty huge as well. Overall this Supreme court is upholding The Constitution. That eminent domain thing was complete crap however.

 

[qliveur]

^Biggest disaster?

 

[techs]

Judge Alito had confirmation hearings:
"I have a tremendous respect for established precedent and don't intend to change it"


Supreme Court Judge Alito:
"Nah,Nah,Nah. I can't hear you. I have my fingers in my ears"

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Or do you mean that the Supreme Court realized that if they supported Kelo than no bridges, or roads might ever be built again?

No, that is a lie. Eminent domain has been used forever for bridges, roads etc. This was different in that none of these things the purpose here. It was to gain more taxes. Bridges and the like can be built from taxes or bonds. Show that they haven't.


It isn't about the people is it? It's about your ability to control the agenda. That's why you don't want corporations having influence. You want it for your own. We are merely subjects for your higher purpose defined not by good, buy by ideology. Or maybe your ideology is the "good" regardless of the harm it may do.

The public be damned, your interest is in power.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Constitutionally, the New London decision was not patently incorrect; Common Law gives government the use of Eminent Domain, but the Constitution states only "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." "Public use" is not defined in the Constitution, and in this case the Court defers to State and Local governments to determine what "Public Use" is.

I would like to see this issue addressed legislatively at Federal and State levels to better define "Public Use", to prevent the kind of (IMHO) unjustifiable condemnation of private property that New London conducted.

Note techs thoughts and my response. The SCOTUS really had to rule as it did but his rants have been about conservatives and corporations. In that case the SCOTUS was wrong because it disagreed with what his wishes are.

We are the subjects of the government at his insistence.

Congress could have fixed this, however it doesn't care. People can be displaced for nothing more than money. It would seem he is fine with injustice, as long as it's his side which metes it out.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Judge Alito had confirmation hearings:
"I have a tremendous respect for established precedent and don't intend to change it"


Supreme Court Judge Alito:
"Nah,Nah,Nah. I can't hear you. I have my fingers in my ears"

President Obama.

"we will not have lobbyists"

President Obama

"We will only have lobbyists I approve of"

 

[BoberFett]

3) Corporations are "persons" under the law.
Well this one is just ridiculous. We are now going to see all the wacky lawsuits over personal "rights" we have seen people file over the last 40 years, now filed by corporations with huge law firms behind them.

You think that happened in the past 11 years? Are you from the past?

 

[RabidMongoose]

2) A political candidate can stop a recount if he is ahead by claiming the recount would "damage" him. This was the most ridiculous justification of a Supreme Court decision ever. It is laughed about in law schools. The SCOTUS could have picked any number of other principles (say, that you can't just recount a few counties, you have to recount them all, etc). Instead they chose to make a decision that made no sense. In the future, we might find that recounts can no longer occur, because as soon as one starts the politician ahead will claim the recount will damage them.

Not that it was a particularly good decision, but I don't think that you have the whole explanation here. It was a violation of the Equal Protection clause (voting as the right being implicated).

 

[lothar]

Oh, you mean the decision the Supreme Court made when it said the Court could not be expected to evaluate the financial merits of every case of the use of "eminent domain" and that in the particular case it only had to be shown there was reasonable ground to apply it?
And that the Court said it was up to States and Localities spell out the rules of Eminent Domain, which they subsequently did?

Or do you mean that the Supreme Court realized that if they supported Kelo than no bridges, or roads might ever be built again?

Yeah, I noticed how badly that affected everyone./sarcasm

Of course, the decision on corporated political donations is having a huge impact this year. The decision in the election of 2000 gave us the worst President ever, and the decision that judges don't need to recuse themselves may not have shown its effects yet, but it will perhaps be the biggest booboo since we have already seen SCOTUS taking bribes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v...romised_economic_benefits_fail_to_materialize

In September 2009, the land where Susette Kelo's home had once stood was an empty lot, and the promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues had not materialized. The land was never deeded back to the original homeowners, most of whom have left New London for nearby communities.[2]
In addition, in September 2009, Pfizer, whose upscale employees were supposed to be the clientele of the Fort Trumbull redevelopment project, completed its merger with Wyeth, resulting in a consolidation of research facilities of the two companies; both companies had a major presence in southeastern Connecticut for many years, meaning that only one facility would likely survive the merger. Ultimately, Pfizer chose to retain the Groton campus on the east side of the Thames River inherited from Wyeth and close its New London facility coinciding with the expiration of tax breaks on the New London site that would have increased Pfizer's property tax bill by almost 400 percent.[17][18]
After the Pfizer announcement, the San Francisco Chronicle in its lead editorial called the Kelo decision infamous:

The well-laid plans of redevelopers, however, did not pan out. The land where Suzette Kelo's little pink house once stood remains undeveloped. The proposed hotel-retail-condo "urban village" has not been built. And earlier this month, Pfizer Inc. announced that it is closing the $350 million research center in New London that was the anchor for the New London redevelopment plan, and will be relocating some 1,500 jobs.[19]
​

The Chronicle editorial quoted from the New York Times:

"They stole our home for economic development," ousted homeowner Michael Cristofaro told the New York Times. "It was all for Pfizer, and now they get up and walk away.
​

Techs is a corporatist shill...He just doesn't know it yet.
Let's hope they seize his home and give it to a multi-billion dollar health insurance, banks, "Big" oil, or pharmaceutical company which does nothing but collect the tax breaks offered by the state and local communities for a few years, and walk away from it after the tax breaks expire.
​

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

http://murrayhillweb.com/pr-012510.html

Supreme Court Ruling Spurs Corporation Run for Congress
First Test of “Corporate Personhood” In Politics

Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal campaigns, Murray Hill Inc. today announced it was filing to run for U.S. Congress and released its first campaign video on www.youtube.com/user/murrayhillcongress

“Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.”

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Funny. I thought the ruling that the 2nd amendment IS incorporated and is a basic civil right and shall be treated as such was the biggest.

Not to mention upholding freedom of speech against government censorship, that was pretty huge as well. Overall this Supreme court is upholding The Constitution. That eminent domain thing was complete crap however.

Maybe you should read and understand what you are responding to...

 

[Pens1566]

Maybe you should read and understand what you are responding to...

Nah, why should he start making sense now?

 

[OutHouse]

Oh, you mean the decision the Supreme Court made when it said the Court could not be expected to evaluate the financial merits of every case of the use of "eminent domain" and that in the particular case it only had to be shown there was reasonable ground to apply it?
And that the Court said it was up to States and Localities spell out the rules of Eminent Domain, which they subsequently did?

Or do you mean that the Supreme Court realized that if they supported Kelo than no bridges, or roads might ever be built again?

Yeah, I noticed how badly that affected everyone./sarcasm

Of course, the decision on corporated political donations is having a huge impact this year. The decision in the election of 2000 gave us the worst President ever, and the decision that judges don't need to recuse themselves may not have shown its effects yet, but it will perhaps be the biggest booboo since we have already seen SCOTUS taking bribes.

so you fully support the SCOTUS decision to allow the government to use eminent domain to take private land and give it to a private developer?

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

so you fully support the SCOTUS decision to allow the government to use eminent domain to take private land and give it to a private developer?

I guess you didn't read either since this was already discussed at length?

 

[spidey07]

Maybe you should read and understand what you are responding to...

I've very familiar with both those cases which is why they are so important. One upheld the 1st amendment, the other the 2nd and incorporated it. I consider these some of the most crucial decisions in the last 10 years as it protected liberty and the bill of rights.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

I've very familiar with both those cases which is why they are so important. One upheld the 1st amendment, the other the 2nd and incorporated it. I consider these some of the most crucial decisions in the last 10 years as it protected liberty and the bill of rights.

Dude.....he said the biggest DISASTERS

 

[spidey07]

Dude.....he said the biggest DISASTERS

whoops, totally missed the disaster part and only saw decision. Reading comprehension fail.

 

[BoberFett]

He also said 11 years. Corporate personhood happened over hundred years ago. techs fail, as usual.