Supreme Court Decisions

geni said:
While that is currently the case roads, railways and canals were historicaly built and owned by private companies. At least in the UK this required an eminent domain analogue (although it generaly involved a dirrect act of parliment in each case) in order to allow the existance of say turnpikes more than a few miles long.
Click to expand...

Was the same wrt roads in the US till ~1850s IIRC when private road company scheme went into decline. The regional governments would obtain the land and give a franchise to the road/turnpike/plank-road company. Railroads private. Canals, like the Erie, mostly public I think.
 
stevea said:
On Kelo - I think the more troubling aspect is that "taking" must be complete to trigger eminent domain compensation - must take title generally. But the EPA, for example, can prevent you from making any economic use of your property, essentially force you to maintain a "nature preserve" at your own expense, without any compensation.
Click to expand...

I recall that decision. It occurred to me at the time that if The People, in their Infinite Wisdom, decided a nest was more important than a factory, then The People should pay for that conceit. Value judgments overriding the Constitution are a fabrication that the Constitution is supposed to forbid.

I recall one of the bleats: "But if government has to pay, there's no way they can afford it!"

Well, yes. You're taking that money anyway out of the pocket of the developer or homeowner. Why no upset about that?
 
Ziggurat said:
Bridges and roads are for public use, obviously: they're controlled by the government, and the public uses them.

A mall is for private use: it's owned privately, and managed privately, for whatever purposes that private owner wants to put it towards. The fact that it might, as a side effect, raise more property tax should not qualify its transfer to other private ownership as a "public use". And as actual events have demonstrated (the redevelopment project never happened, and the Kelo property now stands vacant, generating no property taxes at all), even that premise turned out to be a farce.
Click to expand...
And what about things like electrical infrastructure that is privately owned, but can need to use eminent domain sometimes?

And there is of course private infrastructure of things like bridges too. The one going from Detroit to Canada comes to mind.
 
I have no idea how to answer the questions in the OP.

One of my personal favorites is Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, (1952) ( aka the "Miracle Decision"), in which the Court overturned its previous decision in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915). The earlier decision found that movies were not a form of speech worthy of First Amendment protection.

I like living in a country in which the government cannot censor movies because they are offensive to religious folks.

..........

I am also partial to Mapp v Ohio (1961) which says that states and their subdivisions may not use illegally-obtained evidence to convict someone. I shudder to think what life in Texas would be if the ruling had gone the other way.

Upon reflection, I realized that if I use that standard (I.e. how crappy would life in Texas be without a specific SCOTUS ruling) then I have to add Engle v Vitale to the list (no public school prayers).
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
I have no idea how to answer the questions in the OP.

One of my personal favorites is Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, (1952) ( aka the "Miracle Decision"), in which the Court overturned its previous decision in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915). The earlier decision found that movies were not a form of speech worthy of First Amendment protection.

I like living in a country in which the government cannot censor movies because they are offensive to religious folks.
Click to expand...

And I like living in a country in which the government cannot censor movies because movies are speech and the government cannot censor speech.

Leave it to a hardcore atheist to reduce basic human freedoms to a game of "whatever might annoy a theist".
 
theprestige said:
And I like living in a country in which the government cannot censor movies because movies are speech and the government cannot censor speech.

Leave it to a hardcore atheist to reduce basic human freedoms to a game of "whatever might annoy a theist".
Click to expand...

The case itself dealt with whether or not the government had the right to censor films on the grounds of being sacrilegious .
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
And I like living in a country in which the government cannot censor movies because movies are speech and the government cannot censor speech.

Leave it to a hardcore atheist to reduce basic human freedoms to a game of "whatever might annoy a theist".
Click to expand...

Also, I wasn't taking pleasure in "whatever might annoy a theist," I was taking pleasure that religious folks cannot use the government to limit what other people watch. I really don't care if the theists are happy, or sad, or annoyed, or indifferent. I am just happy that the government cannot censor movies.
 
Ladewig said:
Also, I wasn't taking pleasure in "whatever might annoy a theist," I was taking pleasure that religious folks cannot use the government to limit what other people watch. I really don't care if the theists are happy, or sad, or annoyed, or indifferent. I am just happy that the government cannot censor movies.
Click to expand...

Ha. That's entirely reasonable. I apologize for casting aspersions.
 
theprestige said:
Ha. That's entirely reasonable. I apologize for casting aspersions.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

And while I might be amused when things don't go well for Westboro Baptist, if the government decided to redefine the First Amendment to limit the rights of religious folk, I would not hesitate to step into the breech and fight shoulder to shoulder next to the theists to stop any government interference on worship.
 
Worst? Take your pick: Dred Scott, Plessy or Korematsu.
Best? Damned if I know.
Most significant: I'll go with Marbury.
Most impact? Hard to say. I don't think Brown really qualifies. I think America was heading in that direction already, and social pressures would have forced most of the South to integrate the schools anyway, albeit at a slower pace. Ditto with Roe; people forget that several states (including New York) had already legalized abortion prior to Roe.
 
For most impactful on US society in general, I might suggest McCulloch v. Maryland. This was the one that said that the government could possess powers that weren't spelled out in the constitution, but implied. Depending on your philosophical view, that could also be a possibility for best, worst, and most legally important, as well.
 
Ziggurat said:
WHAT?!?!?!?

You two are being reasonable towards each other? That's not allowed here, this is the politics forum! We demand a blood feud! Swear that your enmity will last for seven generations!
Click to expand...

Oh please don't say that.
I finally kicked my addiction to the Michael Brown thread and I just want to chill.
 
SezMe said:
Bump

Here is where corporate citizenship came from.
Click to expand...

No. Corporate citizenship does not exist in the United States. Corporate personhood exists, but that legal concept predates this decision. In fact the case could only have come to court in the first place because corporate personhood was already well-established. Its significance relates only to the notion that corporations enjoy some constitutional protections, which is not the same thing as corporate personhood. If you want to understand the distinction, note that slaves were persons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom