O'Connor, not Rehnquist, resigns. Thoughts? As for me, I think dubya was chompin' at the bit, waiting for this to happen
from the LA times ...
Justice O'Connor Retiring From Supreme Court
From Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court and a swing vote on abortion as well as other contentious issues, announced her retirement today. A bruising Senate confirmation struggle loomed as President Bush selects a successor.
"It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 years," the 75-year-old justice wrote Bush in a one-paragraph resignation letter. "I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure."
Presidential aides said Bush would make a late-morning statement. It was not clear when he would divulge his choice to take the seat that O'Connor has held since President Reagan appointed her in 1981.
O'Connor's announcement marked the first retirement in 11 years on an aging court. It came as a modest surprise, particularly since Chief Justice William Rehnquist has been the subject of retirement rumors for months. Rehnquist, 80 and ailing with thyroid cancer, has offered no hint as to his future plans.
O'Connor, in a separate one-sentence statement, cited her age and said she "needs to spend time" with family. She and her husband, John, a former classmate at Stanford, have three sons.
At the same time, her position on abortion -- a majority maker in at least one case where the court split 5-4 -- raised the stakes as the president weighed candidates to replace her.
"We'll look back on Justice O'Connor as someone who put reason ahead of ideological fervor, which stands her in stark contrast to many of the judges who might replace her if the radical right gets its way," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Progress for America, a conservative group, instantly launched a humorous Web-based advertisement meant to anticipate attacks on Bush's as-yet-unknown choice and mock them at the same time.
"The president nominated George Washington for the Supreme Court. Democrats immediately attacked Washington for his environmental record of chopping down cherry trees," it said.
she was one of the justices that appointed bush to the presidency - which started this country on the steep downward spiral we are traveling. but in general she has been a moderate. it would be nice if bush would appoint a moderate to replace her. but his m.o. has been to divide the nation at every opportunity - so he won't.
[there - that should get things going...]
it depends, several of you know very well my views on dubya. but facing a growing feeling of a 'lame-duck' legacy could be just what he needs to try to mediate his image a bit by choosing a non-controversial nominee that america at large can say, "yeah, they'll work". on the other hand, mcclellan's already said "I can't imagine that the Democrats would want to engage in controversial tactics when it comes to a nominee for the Supreme Court,".. which boads very poorly for everyone. that particular statement makes me worry that the administration has already got someone they know is too right-wing to just pass through without problems and are already laying rhetorical ground work for a prolonged quagmire of 'democracy'
Speaking of quagmires, my stomach started to look like one as soon as I saw this news.
I read somewhere that Dubya was debating between a real radical right wing nut that would please the evangelicals and a hispanic nominee. I think it might not be so bad if he tries to go with a hispanic judge, it would be nice if the court were to represent the actual diversity of the country. Then again with our luck it would be Gonzales, since they like to promote from within so much.
pretty scary???
say to goodbye to your rights as a woman.
say hello to courts run by big business.
it's one thing for bush to do things like totally ignore science and institute policies that do harm to the environment. he will be gone soon enough and the f'd up he did can be undone. but this - or these - appointments will have long-lasting results that will prove to be absolutely disastrous for the nation.
wonderk..
actually gonzales would be pretty impotent because he has been involved in so many issues that he would be forced to recuse himself from a lot of cases.
Just another reason I see for the last bastion of freedom, the State of New Hampshire, to secede from the union and return to the status it enjoyed as a sovereign nation prior to signing the Constitution... anything to get away from ideological conservatives hell-bent on forcing us all to read the Ten Commandments and accept Jesus Christ as lord... the thing I really get a kick out of about these people is that Jesus was such a huge proponent of free will and socialism basically (albeit voluntarily socialism, if that makes sense)--well social responsibility anyway, which is exactly the opposite of what Bush, the neo-cons and every politically active evangelical conservative I've ever seen... a bit of a tangeant, I know. and I aplogize for that
That disgusting president of ours will put some form of religious zealot in her place. The GOP is probably already hard at work with bio engineers and the country's best governmental scientists and bioligists and robotics experts, building O'Connor's replacement droid - one that will say and do only what the president wants.
manteno: ha. please give us a break. there is no way the gop would trust control of a supreme court justice to dubya. karl rove's already got the controls of most of the judicial/media bots throughout the country, the o'connor bot would definitely just be another toy for his evilness, the rove. :)
I would hope that some commentators I have heard are right - that Dubya would not appoint someone specifically to try to overturn Roe v. Wade, despite what the "christian" right wants, because it would honestly be too controversial - overturning Rv.W could lead to some pretty serious civil upheaval. I for one would be ready to start devoting half my billable hours to civil disobediance if that came to pass.
Of course, everything this administration has done has pretty much been something that before the fact I would have thought "No, no, they'll never do that, that's just too blatantly controversial/stupid/dishonest/insane for anyone who's actually interested in a postive historical legacy to do." And then they do it anyway.
from what i've seen of prolife/prochoice supporter national statistics recently (approx 1/4 vs 3/4 respectively), it would bode very poorly for the republicans during the upcoming midterm elections if bush were to push a big time prolifer at this point.. so don't worry too much yet. but renquist won't be far behind, and if he retires after the midterm elections, then i'd be very surprised if dubya didn't appoint a rightwing extremist for that slot.
i'd like to see willie nelson as the next supreme court justice. no one can resist the red-headed stranger. :)
How come NO ONE has mentioned one legal issue related to our profession? What about the SC's stand on tort reform, professional liability issues, copyright infringement, labor laws and fair treatment of interns. That's what we as a group should be concerned about instead of ridiculous repetition of the talking heads on TV. Come on guys, let's become a little relevant here as a profession.
Maestro, can you direct the discussion around those topics a little more? I am certainly concerned about intellectual copyright as it pertains to architecture. And professional liability issues - I believe the Pennsylvania courts recently ruled that an architect can be held liable for cost overruns that the winning bid contractor did not forsee. But are any cases relevant to these topics scheduled to go before the SC? Forgive my ignorance - I'd like to talk about those issues but don't have anything specific to offer.
while the issues you're talking about are definitely important, they're no more important than the issues we've been discussing. and accusing everyone here of "ridiculous repetition of the talking heads on TV" is pretty obnoxious and insulting.
architecture is about people. what's relevant to the rest of society, IS most certainly relevant to our profession.
tort reform is more of a legislative issue than a judicial one.
and i highly doubt that the supreme court is going to take on 'fair treatment of interns' any time soon, despite how egregiously awful our profession treats the bottom end of its totem pole (not only including interns, but far too often almost everyone below executive positions).
in any case, assuming that you are the one person capable of determing for all of the rest of us the issues that "we as a group should be concerned about" is sort of arrogant.
DeLay: Kelo Ruling Will Go Down as a Travesty
U.S. Newswire via Yahoo! ^ | July 1, 2005
To: National Desk
Contact: Shannon Flaherty of the Office of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, 202-225-4000
WASHINGTON, July 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today said the Supreme Court's eminent domain ruling in Kelo v. New London, Connecticut will go down in history as a travesty as the House of Representatives voted 365-33 to condemn the decision. The resolution, which was sponsored by Rep. Phil Gingrey (news, bio, voting record) (R-Ga.), is the first step taken by the House toward restoring basic private property rights after the Kelo ruling.
"By a narrow 5-4 decision, our high Court essentially set aside the most basic, fundamental tenet of the social contract that underlies self-government: the inviolability of private property rights. The unchangeable principle of politics, morality, and common sense is that what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours," DeLay said. "What the Court decided last week was that what's mine is not really mine, and what's yours is not really yours - that, in fact, private property only exists as a political expedient, a psychological contrivance wholly subject to the government's whims."
The House of Representatives today considered a resolution expressing grave disapproval of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, and legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate to limit federal funding for cities and municipalities that use eminent domain to seize property for economic development.
DeLay concurred with Justices O'Connor, Thomas, Rehnquist, and Scalia that this ruling undermines Americans' Constitutionally protected private property rights and "eras(ed) the Public Use Clause from the Constitution." Both O'Connor and Thomas went on to warn that the result of this decision would leave the poor, the elderly, and racial minorities most vulnerable to losing property to the government.
"Those people with the least economic and political power - with the least means to fight back and the most need for government protection of their God-given rights - have been told by the Supreme Court that while property rights are sacred, some people's property rights are more sacred than others'," DeLay said. "It is not a debatable ideological overreach, but a universally deplorable assault of the rights of man.
"The Court's Kelo decision will go down in history as a travesty."
it always seems strange to me when i agree with scalia and his puppet mr thomas, let alone agree with tom freaking delay, but this is one of those times. of course it's just as strange to me that delay is harping about the rights and freedoms of the downtrodden at all. he's against the gov stepping on the property rights of individuals, but would personally impose religious eminent domain over every person in the country if he could.
still despite (perpetually) questioning his motives, i totally agree with him on this one.
Thank you Nicomachean & heterarchy. This (recent) ruling is probably the most impacting to us as architects. The right to private property and the protections the law gives land owners is one of the true sucesses of the US Constitution. This ruling has given governments, local through federal, the right to seize property for its own purposes. How does this affect architects: With out the stability of private property, homeowners, institutions, developers cannot justify the risk or investment in an unsecure title to property.
How about the citing of foreign law on SC decisions? Would this now open the US to things like land reform, international building codes, and international judgements on copyright laws?
Today the NYT made a cute chart showing a Justice O'Connor in the middle of a series of decisions. The silly part of the chart is that the decisions were mostly those that protect the interests of the so called right. Justice O'Connor was did not sit on the fence politically, she was comitted constructionist, and we would benefit from the same in the future choices for decisions that affect our profession as well as our personal rights and obligations.
actually, though i totally 'agree to disagree' with the sc decision itself, it isn't because i'm concerned about it giving "governments, local through federal, the right to seize property for its own purposes"... in fact, the government has always had that right (it's the 5th ammendment). this new ruling doesn't so much benefit the government as it does big businesses, developers and the like. though the classic use of eminent domain was always hard to swallow if you were on the usurped from end, it was (almost/theoretically) always used for the general benefit of the public. the new ruling is intended to promote prosperity at local levels, but it does so by effectively putting big businesses in power of municipal level governments. that's my beef.
in actuality though maestro, this ruling is very likely to HELP architects through EMPOWERING developers. but as thomas and o'connor said above, it will "leave the poor, the elderly, and racial minorities most vulnerable".
so if you're upset with the implications of this ruling for architecture, then you need to take a closer look at what the ruling really means. the ruling is likely to spur a great deal of construction/architecture work in the near future, because developers will want to make use of their new power before congress acts to take it away again (which has already began, see delay article above).
scary,
liberals threating social upheavel if they don't get what they want. scary. i guess there are not as tollerent as they claim. they what other to do what they say, but don't want to practice what they preach. hum sounds two faced to me.
what liberals, what threatening, what social upheval? what are you talking about?
in any case, though i disagree with the ruling, precisely because i find it to be UNLIBERAL, it isn't anywhere near as simple as what you're making of it. for a little enlightenment, see here.
you can skip through a lot of the precedent stuff unless you've got a lot of free time, but in general you'll get the impression that your statements are vastly oversimplified.
although the issue of eminent domain doesn't actually scare me all that much. first of all, the government has long had the power of e.d. (after all, how do you think all those free-ways showed up in the middle of town). this ruling is really just a tweaking as to what defines the "public good". but the real reason that it doesn't scare me is that e.d. is still a highly controversial policitical issue that most people, especially politicians, do not want to deal with. even most developers are unlikely to force the issue because from their mindset political risk remains a hot potato that they would rather avoid.
in practice, i expect this ruling to have very little effect. only in rare cases will it emerge as an issue, i.e., both developer and politician would have to strongly believe in the benefits of the proposal and be willing to risk their carreers to force through the eminent domain. and in such rare cases, it would probably spark a long and justified public dialogue regarding the specific project which, in my opinion, is probably a healthy thing anyhow.
two more things regarding the issue of e.d...
first, to hear delay and friends cite how "this decision would leave the poor, the elderly, and racial minorities most vulnerable to losing property to the government." is laughable to me since they are assuming that the most vulnerable citizens even have property to lose to the government.
second, i am visiting family in a small midwestern town on this holiday weekend and i was surprised to hear my father claim that the supreme court's decision on e.d. was the result of the "democrats, who are actually the ones in bed with big business." maybe it's just me, but i had thought the democrats had been thoroughly marginalized as a political force (i.e., they don't have any power since the republicans have been winning all the elections). is my father as nuts as i think he sounds or did i miss something here?
puddles: i almost entirely agree with you. the one thing that does scare me about the decision is right along the lines of delay's remarks. politicians/developers/etc definitely do not want to risk their careers or investments through controversial maelstroms of publicity. however, it's been proven time and again that nobody really gives a crap about the lowest rungs on the social ladder. this most recent case was brought by upper middle class white people in conneticut. but the cases implications for minority neighborhoods in the deep south and lower class inner urban areas are profound and frightening. still, it isn't as bad as the instant hoopla it's generated has made it out to be. and your appraisal that the ruling didn't neccessarily change much of anything other than clarifying an already existing law in practice, is perfectly accurate.
as for your dad's views... i'd venture that he's both right and wrong. all politicians are in bed with big business, because big business has made it a top priority for centuries to control the government to it's own ends. fortunately, because all the businesses are equally fanatical about it, and because they're all very narrowly selfish and inherently opposed to eachother, they've never completely succeeded. but if the degree to which "our" government is manipulated by these companies was ever made irrefutably clear to the public, then you might see icedragon's "social upheval". in any case, the more corrupt party is almost always the one with the most power, because businesses have considerably less use for minorities. so currently the republicans are definitely more responsible for 'fluffing the pillows'. however, the republicans, and karl rove in particular, have composed a brilliant political smokescreen/bait and switch in the past couple of decades that is built on publicly espousing blue-collar values, while systematically undermining the actual quality of life for blue-collar families. the democrats (excluding bill clinton) have been so politically inept that they haven't been able to expose this paradox. if you took away political labels - 'republican', 'democrat', 'conservative', 'liberal', and excluded religious issues (which shouldn't be a factor in politics anyway) then a vast majority of died in the wool "republicans" would end up voting "democratic"...
for all you "pragmatists" who doubt the monumentality of this decision these are ominous words from a Supreme Court Justice actually involved in the case:
[from the opening of O'Connor's dissent]
Justice O’Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.
Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote:
“An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority … . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean… . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it.†Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).
Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded–i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public–in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use†is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property–and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use†from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.
to be honest, in a different context, even if it were still bush saying it, i would almost be happy to hear a president say that. picking a sc justice is by no means easy, and basing the choice on objective merit rather than opinions is something that i would like to stand behind. but in this case, i'm afraid that it's code for "i'm going to pick someone based on their opinions, and then try to get around the general public not agreeing with their opinions by saying that i picked them purely based on merit."
regardless of whether that's the case or not, the president publicly pronouncing that he intends to not use any sort of litmus test in choosing his sc nominee in this political climate is just going to stir up more crap, and bog the entire process down in more political rhetoric.
i do sympathize with dubya on the gonzales situation though. the right complains that he's not right enough, the left complains that he's way too far right... the guy just can't win.
do not bother listening to what chimpy says. what he says and what he does are diametrically opposed. in bushworld words and actions are like yin and yang. down is up. wrong is right. bad is good.
how's this for a stat though:
if bush lied about iraq 42 percent of the nation thinks he should be impeached. at the height of the lewinsky matter only 36% thought clinton should be impeached. of course the latter had to deal with a republican congress and today a republican congress bends over and grabs it's ankles for the chimpster.
wow, that's an excellent stat. 42 percent of america thinks w should be impeached if he lied? well, we know that he lied, that's "old news", even according to the administration. so how does 42% not lead to formal impeachment hearings? the pubs may control everything, but why the hell are more dems and more media not stirring some shit up? 42%! that's a huge number to be behind something as major as impeachment. i'm not sure how i feel about actually ousting bush as a result of impeachment proceedings, but i'm totally behind starting up the process and impeaching him. afterall, even if he were impeached, there's no way he'd be convicted. at least the process would demonstrate that america doesn't have its head quite as far up its arse as it seems...
small problem for you...Bush didn't lie...John Kerry said so during the campaign, Dean & Co. have concurred. "misled" maybe, but didn't "lie"
try again.
Sandra Day O'Connor Resigns ....
O'Connor, not Rehnquist, resigns. Thoughts? As for me, I think dubya was chompin' at the bit, waiting for this to happen
from the LA times ...
Justice O'Connor Retiring From Supreme Court
From Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court and a swing vote on abortion as well as other contentious issues, announced her retirement today. A bruising Senate confirmation struggle loomed as President Bush selects a successor.
"It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 years," the 75-year-old justice wrote Bush in a one-paragraph resignation letter. "I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure."
Presidential aides said Bush would make a late-morning statement. It was not clear when he would divulge his choice to take the seat that O'Connor has held since President Reagan appointed her in 1981.
O'Connor's announcement marked the first retirement in 11 years on an aging court. It came as a modest surprise, particularly since Chief Justice William Rehnquist has been the subject of retirement rumors for months. Rehnquist, 80 and ailing with thyroid cancer, has offered no hint as to his future plans.
O'Connor, in a separate one-sentence statement, cited her age and said she "needs to spend time" with family. She and her husband, John, a former classmate at Stanford, have three sons.
At the same time, her position on abortion -- a majority maker in at least one case where the court split 5-4 -- raised the stakes as the president weighed candidates to replace her.
"We'll look back on Justice O'Connor as someone who put reason ahead of ideological fervor, which stands her in stark contrast to many of the judges who might replace her if the radical right gets its way," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Progress for America, a conservative group, instantly launched a humorous Web-based advertisement meant to anticipate attacks on Bush's as-yet-unknown choice and mock them at the same time.
"The president nominated George Washington for the Supreme Court. Democrats immediately attacked Washington for his environmental record of chopping down cherry trees," it said.
let the games begin.
she was one of the justices that appointed bush to the presidency - which started this country on the steep downward spiral we are traveling. but in general she has been a moderate. it would be nice if bush would appoint a moderate to replace her. but his m.o. has been to divide the nation at every opportunity - so he won't.
[there - that should get things going...]
good riddance
nominate janice rogers brown
please divide the country by continuing to fight off the unprincipled & spineless 'moderates'
this could be looking pretty scary if rehnquist retires as well.
if rehnquist retires, there could be two additional appointments: a new associate justice as well as a new chief justice.
*big big frowny face*
it depends, several of you know very well my views on dubya. but facing a growing feeling of a 'lame-duck' legacy could be just what he needs to try to mediate his image a bit by choosing a non-controversial nominee that america at large can say, "yeah, they'll work". on the other hand, mcclellan's already said "I can't imagine that the Democrats would want to engage in controversial tactics when it comes to a nominee for the Supreme Court,".. which boads very poorly for everyone. that particular statement makes me worry that the administration has already got someone they know is too right-wing to just pass through without problems and are already laying rhetorical ground work for a prolonged quagmire of 'democracy'
Speaking of quagmires, my stomach started to look like one as soon as I saw this news.
I read somewhere that Dubya was debating between a real radical right wing nut that would please the evangelicals and a hispanic nominee. I think it might not be so bad if he tries to go with a hispanic judge, it would be nice if the court were to represent the actual diversity of the country. Then again with our luck it would be Gonzales, since they like to promote from within so much.
pretty scary???
say to goodbye to your rights as a woman.
say hello to courts run by big business.
it's one thing for bush to do things like totally ignore science and institute policies that do harm to the environment. he will be gone soon enough and the f'd up he did can be undone. but this - or these - appointments will have long-lasting results that will prove to be absolutely disastrous for the nation.
wonderk..
actually gonzales would be pretty impotent because he has been involved in so many issues that he would be forced to recuse himself from a lot of cases.
I'M GOING TO GO HOME AND WEEP OVER MY MS. MAGAZINE.
"apres moi, le deluge..."
Just another reason I see for the last bastion of freedom, the State of New Hampshire, to secede from the union and return to the status it enjoyed as a sovereign nation prior to signing the Constitution... anything to get away from ideological conservatives hell-bent on forcing us all to read the Ten Commandments and accept Jesus Christ as lord... the thing I really get a kick out of about these people is that Jesus was such a huge proponent of free will and socialism basically (albeit voluntarily socialism, if that makes sense)--well social responsibility anyway, which is exactly the opposite of what Bush, the neo-cons and every politically active evangelical conservative I've ever seen... a bit of a tangeant, I know. and I aplogize for that
wow
Scalia and 8 clones of Scalia would be perfect
to watch Jim Lehrer tonight and the next gazillion nights...
hear come the Court Wars
I predict Dubya will nominate the honorable Charlton Heston. Free semi autos for all.
look out for the propaganda from both side the sensationalizing and distrotion from both sides.
is it too early for a bloody revolution?
maybe it is time for an american insurgency to take everyone's mind off the iraqi one.
everyone should hope for a strict constitutional constructivist, or we will soon see the day when all property is owned by developers.
caleb ... you know you are an architect when you refer to a lawmaker as a "constructivist."
:)
all I can say is, CRAP
Who's up for a last round of abortions and pagan worship before liberty closes for good?
That disgusting president of ours will put some form of religious zealot in her place. The GOP is probably already hard at work with bio engineers and the country's best governmental scientists and bioligists and robotics experts, building O'Connor's replacement droid - one that will say and do only what the president wants.
a second Civil War
Armageddon
we raise our glasses high, one in anguish, one in celebration
manteno: ha. please give us a break. there is no way the gop would trust control of a supreme court justice to dubya. karl rove's already got the controls of most of the judicial/media bots throughout the country, the o'connor bot would definitely just be another toy for his evilness, the rove. :)
I would hope that some commentators I have heard are right - that Dubya would not appoint someone specifically to try to overturn Roe v. Wade, despite what the "christian" right wants, because it would honestly be too controversial - overturning Rv.W could lead to some pretty serious civil upheaval. I for one would be ready to start devoting half my billable hours to civil disobediance if that came to pass.
Of course, everything this administration has done has pretty much been something that before the fact I would have thought "No, no, they'll never do that, that's just too blatantly controversial/stupid/dishonest/insane for anyone who's actually interested in a postive historical legacy to do." And then they do it anyway.
So I'm scared. I'm quite queasy and quite scared.
from what i've seen of prolife/prochoice supporter national statistics recently (approx 1/4 vs 3/4 respectively), it would bode very poorly for the republicans during the upcoming midterm elections if bush were to push a big time prolifer at this point.. so don't worry too much yet. but renquist won't be far behind, and if he retires after the midterm elections, then i'd be very surprised if dubya didn't appoint a rightwing extremist for that slot.
i'd like to see willie nelson as the next supreme court justice. no one can resist the red-headed stranger. :)
How come NO ONE has mentioned one legal issue related to our profession? What about the SC's stand on tort reform, professional liability issues, copyright infringement, labor laws and fair treatment of interns. That's what we as a group should be concerned about instead of ridiculous repetition of the talking heads on TV. Come on guys, let's become a little relevant here as a profession.
Maestro, can you direct the discussion around those topics a little more? I am certainly concerned about intellectual copyright as it pertains to architecture. And professional liability issues - I believe the Pennsylvania courts recently ruled that an architect can be held liable for cost overruns that the winning bid contractor did not forsee. But are any cases relevant to these topics scheduled to go before the SC? Forgive my ignorance - I'd like to talk about those issues but don't have anything specific to offer.
while the issues you're talking about are definitely important, they're no more important than the issues we've been discussing. and accusing everyone here of "ridiculous repetition of the talking heads on TV" is pretty obnoxious and insulting.
architecture is about people. what's relevant to the rest of society, IS most certainly relevant to our profession.
tort reform is more of a legislative issue than a judicial one.
and i highly doubt that the supreme court is going to take on 'fair treatment of interns' any time soon, despite how egregiously awful our profession treats the bottom end of its totem pole (not only including interns, but far too often almost everyone below executive positions).
in any case, assuming that you are the one person capable of determing for all of the rest of us the issues that "we as a group should be concerned about" is sort of arrogant.
DeLay: Kelo Ruling Will Go Down as a Travesty
U.S. Newswire via Yahoo! ^ | July 1, 2005
To: National Desk
Contact: Shannon Flaherty of the Office of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, 202-225-4000
WASHINGTON, July 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today said the Supreme Court's eminent domain ruling in Kelo v. New London, Connecticut will go down in history as a travesty as the House of Representatives voted 365-33 to condemn the decision. The resolution, which was sponsored by Rep. Phil Gingrey (news, bio, voting record) (R-Ga.), is the first step taken by the House toward restoring basic private property rights after the Kelo ruling.
"By a narrow 5-4 decision, our high Court essentially set aside the most basic, fundamental tenet of the social contract that underlies self-government: the inviolability of private property rights. The unchangeable principle of politics, morality, and common sense is that what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours," DeLay said. "What the Court decided last week was that what's mine is not really mine, and what's yours is not really yours - that, in fact, private property only exists as a political expedient, a psychological contrivance wholly subject to the government's whims."
The House of Representatives today considered a resolution expressing grave disapproval of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, and legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate to limit federal funding for cities and municipalities that use eminent domain to seize property for economic development.
DeLay concurred with Justices O'Connor, Thomas, Rehnquist, and Scalia that this ruling undermines Americans' Constitutionally protected private property rights and "eras(ed) the Public Use Clause from the Constitution." Both O'Connor and Thomas went on to warn that the result of this decision would leave the poor, the elderly, and racial minorities most vulnerable to losing property to the government.
"Those people with the least economic and political power - with the least means to fight back and the most need for government protection of their God-given rights - have been told by the Supreme Court that while property rights are sacred, some people's property rights are more sacred than others'," DeLay said. "It is not a debatable ideological overreach, but a universally deplorable assault of the rights of man.
"The Court's Kelo decision will go down in history as a travesty."
it always seems strange to me when i agree with scalia and his puppet mr thomas, let alone agree with tom freaking delay, but this is one of those times. of course it's just as strange to me that delay is harping about the rights and freedoms of the downtrodden at all. he's against the gov stepping on the property rights of individuals, but would personally impose religious eminent domain over every person in the country if he could.
still despite (perpetually) questioning his motives, i totally agree with him on this one.
Thank you Nicomachean & heterarchy. This (recent) ruling is probably the most impacting to us as architects. The right to private property and the protections the law gives land owners is one of the true sucesses of the US Constitution. This ruling has given governments, local through federal, the right to seize property for its own purposes. How does this affect architects: With out the stability of private property, homeowners, institutions, developers cannot justify the risk or investment in an unsecure title to property.
How about the citing of foreign law on SC decisions? Would this now open the US to things like land reform, international building codes, and international judgements on copyright laws?
Today the NYT made a cute chart showing a Justice O'Connor in the middle of a series of decisions. The silly part of the chart is that the decisions were mostly those that protect the interests of the so called right. Justice O'Connor was did not sit on the fence politically, she was comitted constructionist, and we would benefit from the same in the future choices for decisions that affect our profession as well as our personal rights and obligations.
actually, though i totally 'agree to disagree' with the sc decision itself, it isn't because i'm concerned about it giving "governments, local through federal, the right to seize property for its own purposes"... in fact, the government has always had that right (it's the 5th ammendment). this new ruling doesn't so much benefit the government as it does big businesses, developers and the like. though the classic use of eminent domain was always hard to swallow if you were on the usurped from end, it was (almost/theoretically) always used for the general benefit of the public. the new ruling is intended to promote prosperity at local levels, but it does so by effectively putting big businesses in power of municipal level governments. that's my beef.
in actuality though maestro, this ruling is very likely to HELP architects through EMPOWERING developers. but as thomas and o'connor said above, it will "leave the poor, the elderly, and racial minorities most vulnerable".
so if you're upset with the implications of this ruling for architecture, then you need to take a closer look at what the ruling really means. the ruling is likely to spur a great deal of construction/architecture work in the near future, because developers will want to make use of their new power before congress acts to take it away again (which has already began, see delay article above).
emminent domain had been the right of government to take your land for the public need...
this is emminent domain 2.0, an even more immoral thievery.
now the government can sanction a private citizen stealing another citizen's property, in the name of the so-called 'public good'.
this is Orwellian on the scale of the New Deal.
scary,
liberals threating social upheavel if they don't get what they want. scary. i guess there are not as tollerent as they claim. they what other to do what they say, but don't want to practice what they preach. hum sounds two faced to me.
what liberals, what threatening, what social upheval? what are you talking about?
in any case, though i disagree with the ruling, precisely because i find it to be UNLIBERAL, it isn't anywhere near as simple as what you're making of it. for a little enlightenment, see here.
you can skip through a lot of the precedent stuff unless you've got a lot of free time, but in general you'll get the impression that your statements are vastly oversimplified.
although the issue of eminent domain doesn't actually scare me all that much. first of all, the government has long had the power of e.d. (after all, how do you think all those free-ways showed up in the middle of town). this ruling is really just a tweaking as to what defines the "public good". but the real reason that it doesn't scare me is that e.d. is still a highly controversial policitical issue that most people, especially politicians, do not want to deal with. even most developers are unlikely to force the issue because from their mindset political risk remains a hot potato that they would rather avoid.
in practice, i expect this ruling to have very little effect. only in rare cases will it emerge as an issue, i.e., both developer and politician would have to strongly believe in the benefits of the proposal and be willing to risk their carreers to force through the eminent domain. and in such rare cases, it would probably spark a long and justified public dialogue regarding the specific project which, in my opinion, is probably a healthy thing anyhow.
two more things regarding the issue of e.d...
first, to hear delay and friends cite how "this decision would leave the poor, the elderly, and racial minorities most vulnerable to losing property to the government." is laughable to me since they are assuming that the most vulnerable citizens even have property to lose to the government.
second, i am visiting family in a small midwestern town on this holiday weekend and i was surprised to hear my father claim that the supreme court's decision on e.d. was the result of the "democrats, who are actually the ones in bed with big business." maybe it's just me, but i had thought the democrats had been thoroughly marginalized as a political force (i.e., they don't have any power since the republicans have been winning all the elections). is my father as nuts as i think he sounds or did i miss something here?
puddles: i almost entirely agree with you. the one thing that does scare me about the decision is right along the lines of delay's remarks. politicians/developers/etc definitely do not want to risk their careers or investments through controversial maelstroms of publicity. however, it's been proven time and again that nobody really gives a crap about the lowest rungs on the social ladder. this most recent case was brought by upper middle class white people in conneticut. but the cases implications for minority neighborhoods in the deep south and lower class inner urban areas are profound and frightening. still, it isn't as bad as the instant hoopla it's generated has made it out to be. and your appraisal that the ruling didn't neccessarily change much of anything other than clarifying an already existing law in practice, is perfectly accurate.
as for your dad's views... i'd venture that he's both right and wrong. all politicians are in bed with big business, because big business has made it a top priority for centuries to control the government to it's own ends. fortunately, because all the businesses are equally fanatical about it, and because they're all very narrowly selfish and inherently opposed to eachother, they've never completely succeeded. but if the degree to which "our" government is manipulated by these companies was ever made irrefutably clear to the public, then you might see icedragon's "social upheval". in any case, the more corrupt party is almost always the one with the most power, because businesses have considerably less use for minorities. so currently the republicans are definitely more responsible for 'fluffing the pillows'. however, the republicans, and karl rove in particular, have composed a brilliant political smokescreen/bait and switch in the past couple of decades that is built on publicly espousing blue-collar values, while systematically undermining the actual quality of life for blue-collar families. the democrats (excluding bill clinton) have been so politically inept that they haven't been able to expose this paradox. if you took away political labels - 'republican', 'democrat', 'conservative', 'liberal', and excluded religious issues (which shouldn't be a factor in politics anyway) then a vast majority of died in the wool "republicans" would end up voting "democratic"...
for all you "pragmatists" who doubt the monumentality of this decision these are ominous words from a Supreme Court Justice actually involved in the case:
[from the opening of O'Connor's dissent]
Justice O’Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.
Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote:
“An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority … . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean… . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it.†Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).
Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded–i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public–in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use†is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property–and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use†from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.
read the rest here:
O'Connor's dissent in full
question for pragmatists: do you care value pragmaticism over justice?
revised question: do you value pragmaticism over justice?
uh-oh. three scary words from dubya:
"no litmus test"...
to be honest, in a different context, even if it were still bush saying it, i would almost be happy to hear a president say that. picking a sc justice is by no means easy, and basing the choice on objective merit rather than opinions is something that i would like to stand behind. but in this case, i'm afraid that it's code for "i'm going to pick someone based on their opinions, and then try to get around the general public not agreeing with their opinions by saying that i picked them purely based on merit."
regardless of whether that's the case or not, the president publicly pronouncing that he intends to not use any sort of litmus test in choosing his sc nominee in this political climate is just going to stir up more crap, and bog the entire process down in more political rhetoric.
i do sympathize with dubya on the gonzales situation though. the right complains that he's not right enough, the left complains that he's way too far right... the guy just can't win.
do not bother listening to what chimpy says. what he says and what he does are diametrically opposed. in bushworld words and actions are like yin and yang. down is up. wrong is right. bad is good.
how's this for a stat though:
if bush lied about iraq 42 percent of the nation thinks he should be impeached. at the height of the lewinsky matter only 36% thought clinton should be impeached. of course the latter had to deal with a republican congress and today a republican congress bends over and grabs it's ankles for the chimpster.
wow, that's an excellent stat. 42 percent of america thinks w should be impeached if he lied? well, we know that he lied, that's "old news", even according to the administration. so how does 42% not lead to formal impeachment hearings? the pubs may control everything, but why the hell are more dems and more media not stirring some shit up? 42%! that's a huge number to be behind something as major as impeachment. i'm not sure how i feel about actually ousting bush as a result of impeachment proceedings, but i'm totally behind starting up the process and impeaching him. afterall, even if he were impeached, there's no way he'd be convicted. at least the process would demonstrate that america doesn't have its head quite as far up its arse as it seems...
small problem for you...Bush didn't lie...John Kerry said so during the campaign, Dean & Co. have concurred. "misled" maybe, but didn't "lie"
try again.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.