The Next Supreme

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby OperaTenor » Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:09 pm

HI Ben,

Good to hear from you, and I hope you're able to post more often in the future.

Me? Stubborn?!! :p

Re Alito: I heard about one decision he handed down his first day on the bench(can't remember the specific ruling) that sounded relatively hopeful. Beyond my feeling he'll tend to rule on the side of big business, I believe he'll be a pretty strict constructionist, and they tend to be pretty centrist, which is just fine by me.

My prediction: John Paul Stevens will be the next to go, but he'll wait until there's a Dem in the White House if he can help it.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby BenODen » Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:45 pm

One hopes there will BE a next democrat in office.. Getting pretty heated out there...

(Oh, and as for more often, I suspect so.. You guys know how to have a good time around here and things are quieting down some...)
If only I could fly on my own wings.
BenODen
3rd Chair
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Colorado, YAY

Postby Serenity » Sat Jun 10, 2006 4:21 pm

It doesn't matter what party is in charge. I'll be happy to see someone with integrity, discipline and common sense in charge.
Serenity
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4666
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 12:01 am

Postby Shapley » Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:57 am

Last edited by Shapley on Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby BigJon@Work » Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:10 am

Did you mean
"I am a 12 foot lizard." GCR Jan 31, 2006
BigJon@Work
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 2252
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 12:01 am
Location: work. Duh!

Postby Shapley » Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:24 am

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Thanks. :oops:
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby jamiebk » Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:35 am

Did not see this thread before I re-activated the "Is GWB the right Leader" topic with regard to this latest court ruling.

Look, I don't like these Gitmo prisoners any more than anyone else. I believe that they are terrorists, murderers, and generally, any of them would gladly do anything in their power to destroy the US. However, we are at war (with them) and we should engage by the rules we have established for such prisoners during war. I believe them to be POWs and should be treated as such. I don't believe there is a chance in hell that they would treat any of our soldiers in that manner, and that is clear from the recent brutal torture and slaying of the two kidnapped guards. But if the US is true to its word, then we must apply the principals that make us the nation we are so proud of.

Bush CLEARLY overstepped his bounds and finally, there is an authoritative body that agrees with what the American people have been saying for a long time. This presidential power grab goes well beyond this Gitmo ruling. Wiretaps, seizure of financial records...all in the name of the war on terror. Benjamin Franklin said it succinctly and eloquently "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Postby Shapley » Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:11 am

Jamie,

We'll keep this discussion in the "George Bush" thread, since it probably fits better there. I should have posted the link there, first. I was trying to use it to stir debate on the constitution of the Supreme Court, rather than on the question of President Bush' handling of the war on terror, since I thought it was too narrow a ruling to really draw any conclusions in that regard.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:26 pm

The Supreme Court ruled that the seizure of private property from several residents of New London, Connecticut to make way for a new site owned by pharmaceutical manufacturer Pfizer met the test of “public use” for eminent domain. 10 years after New London took homes away from its citizens to sell the land to a private corporation, Pfizer has decided it doesn’t want the facility after all, adding a fitting example of hubris to a chapter of governmental abuse:

The private homes New London, Conn., took through eminent domain from Suzette Kelo and others, are torn down now, but Pfizer has just announced that it closing up shop at the research facility that led to the condemnation.

Leading drugmakers Pfizer and Wyeth have merged, and as a result, are trimming some jobs. That includes axing the 1,400 jobs at their sparkling new research & development facility in New London, and moving some across the river to Groton.

To lure those jobs to New London a decade ago, the local government promised to demolish the older residential neighborhood adjacent to the land Pfizer was buying for next-to-nothing. Suzette Kelo fought the taking to the Supreme Court, and lost, as five justices said this redvelopment met the constitutional hurdle of “public use.”

Ms. Kelo and many others lost their home, but the land is still undeveloped. Now Pfizer is abandoning the city altogether.


What are the lessons from this debacle? First, the American system should protect private property from the reach of government as a starting point. The Kelo decision assumed that the government was in the best position to make decisions about the best use of private property by private entities.

New London chose poorly anyway. Instead of having homeowners on that property, paying taxes and providing stability, the city now has an empty lot and a ton of political baggage. The biggest lesson is that private owners should have the benefit of deciding for themselves the best private use of their land — primarily to bolster the rule of law and the concept of private property that lies at the heart of our personal liberty, but also because government is a lot more likely to muck it up.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Shapley » Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:14 pm

If Pfizer wanted the land cleared, Pfizer should have bought the land and cleared it. Then, Pfizer would be paying taxes on the land, plant or no plant (although the taxes on an empty lot are significantly less than they are on occupied property). Likely as not, Pfizer will donate the new plant building to the city at some point, removing themselves from all tax liability and stripping the city of all tax income from the deal.

This is why you should elect honest and moral people at all levels of government.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Shapley wrote:If Pfizer wanted the land cleared, Pfizer should have bought the land and cleared it. Then, Pfizer would be paying taxes on the land, plant or no plant (although the taxes on an empty lot are significantly less than they are on occupied property). Likely as not, Pfizer will donate the new plant building to the city at some point, removing themselves from all tax liability and stripping the city of all tax income from the deal.

This is why you should elect honest and moral people at all levels of government.


I'm not sure Pfizer ever bought the land. The article tends to indicate that Pfizer had a piece of land adjacent to the Kelo land but no indication that they ever actually bought it.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Shapley » Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:53 pm

I was referring to the "sparkling new research & development facility in New London", which I gather from the article is adjacent to the empty neighborhood the article speaks of.

Many companies seek a 'buffer zone' between their facilities and the surrounding community, either as a space for expansion, a protection against blight, or a necessary component of their insurance policy and/or evacuation plan. From what I gather, the city took the land and retained it (meaning no taxes are paid on it). They expected that the trade-off of lost property taxes was worth the additional revenues from the property taxes on Pfizer's property (taxes on commercial and/or industrial land are frequently higher than on residential properties, assuming it was a low-tax 'enterprise zone'), and the additional revenues generated by the commerce. Looks like a bad trade on the commerce end, but the property tax trade-off may still be in the positive column. If Pfizer abandons the site and donates the land, that, too, is a loss.

Companies frequently dump unwanted properties to universities and communities to get shed of the tax and insurance liabilities they carry. Empty factories are still taxed, and you still have to carry insurance in case the vandals that break your windows get hurt in the process. Let the community turn that factory into a community center, a park, or a University Extension Center, and you get shed of the liability, get your picture in the paper for being generous, and get a tax write-off to boot.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby piqaboo » Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:36 pm

It was appalling then and now just demonstrates how appalling.
Like the city that took land to build retail space.
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Shapley » Mon May 10, 2010 8:31 am

It appears Mr. Obama has chosen Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be the next Supreme Court Justice. She has never been a judge, not that that is a requirement for the job. I do seem to recall a lot of fuss over President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers because of her lack of judicial experience.

Ms. Kagan is well known for her efforts to block military recuriters from the Harvard campus when she was dean there. She attacked the 'military's discriminatory recruitment policy'. Of course, the military did not set the policy, Congress did (a Democrat congress, at that), and the current Congress has not seen fit to change it. Will she have the gumption to stand up and berate the Senate over the policy, even as she asks for their approval of her nomination?
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Shapley » Mon May 10, 2010 8:41 am

Here was a post from this forum when Harriet Miers was nominated:

Selma in Sandy Eggo wrote:I think we have a consensus. Sounds like the whole group is inclined not to favor confirmation of Ms. Miers, mostly on grounds of lack of experience as a judge. Nobody seems offended by her nomination so much as disappointed that President Bush couldn't come up with somebody better. He should definitely be encouraged to look again. Firmly encouraged.

I want the Supreme Court staffed with smart, experienced judges with a strong background in constitutional law and a consistent record of evaluating cases for conformance with the constitution.


Let's see how the board weighs in on Ms. Kagan...

I'm not picking on you, Selma. I chose this post because it shows the 'consensus' of the board. I was going to cut and past comments from several posts, but this one summed it up.
Last edited by Shapley on Mon May 10, 2010 9:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon May 10, 2010 8:56 am

Mark Davis, my local radio talk show host is discussing her qualifications as well as what's not being discussed right now on WBAP. You can listen here
http://www.wbap.com/article.asp?id=746707
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby OperaTenor » Mon May 10, 2010 10:07 am

Does anyone else find it ironic that Obama, in pointing up Kagan's attributes, cited her as representing the public's interest in Citizens United? You know, the one where the corporations won and the public lost?!

Apparently, she'll be a compliment to Alito, Scalia and Thomas...
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Haggis@wk » Thu May 13, 2010 10:25 am

Byron York reports on an obscure but potentially embarrassing controversy involving Elena Kagan's days in the Clinton administration:

In 1995 and 1996, future Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was involved in a bizarre controversy in which the Clinton White House was accused of siding with an eco-terrorist group locked in a standoff with federal agents deep in the woods of Oregon. The incident led to an investigation by House Republicans, who concluded that a staffer on the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) tipped off the environmental radicals to impending action by U.S. Forest Service law enforcement agents -- a leak that Forest Service officials believed endangered the lives of their agents on the ground.

Kagan, at the time an associate White House counsel, had no role in leaking the feds' plans to the radicals, but House Committee on Natural Resources investigators concluded she shirked her responsibility by not searching for the source of the leak or pushing for punishment of the leaker.

"Nothing was ever done by Elena Kagan to learn the details about the leaks, or to identify the leaker and ensure that proper punishment occurred," the committee's 1999 report concluded. In fact, investigators found evidence suggesting that Kagan, in internal White House discussions, defended the alleged leaker.


(emphasis added) The suspected leaker was a senior CEQ official Dinah Bear who had wide contacts in the environmental community. Bear wrote in an email that "Elena went out of her way to go to bat for yours truly, which was quite decent of her." When congressional investigators asked the White House for Kagan's notes of her discussions with Dinah Bear, the White House refused to provide them.

It's quite likely that during her confirmation hearings, Kagan will be asked about the Warner Creek incident. It's quite unlikely that the matter will hurt Kagan's chances of being confirmed. But depending on the facts and how she answers questions about the matter, Kagan may come off looking bad. That, in turn, would make President Obama look bad.

The public would probably look askance at a nominee who disses the U.S. military and goes "to bat" for leakers who undermine U.S. law enforcement officials.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Haggis@wk » Fri May 14, 2010 8:54 am

Hmmmmmmmm

The New York Times received permission on Tuesday from Hunter College High School in Manhattan, Elena Kagan’s alma mater, to observe a constitutional law class there taught by her brother Irving. We thought it would be intriguing to watch the give and take between Mr. Kagan, who is known as a passionate and interactive educator, and his students on his first day back after witnessing his sister’s nomination in Washington.

Mr. Kagan, who is also a Hunter alumnus, did not have a problem with the idea, a school spokeswoman said, but she added that all media requests now had to be given final approval by the White House. The times were tentatively set: there was either an 8:52 a.m. class or a 9:36 a.m. class on Wednesday. “I thought it would have been great,” said the spokeswoman, Meredith Halpern.
But when presented with the idea, the White House balked.

Joshua Earnest, a White House spokesman, said that the administration was “uncomfortable with the idea at this time.”


Her cousin’s suddenly not talking to reporters either. What’s next? Refusing to release her school grades ala the One?
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Shapley » Fri May 14, 2010 9:12 am

Apparently, given that the White House now has its own broadcasting wing and does not talk to the press, but sends them interviews conducted by White House staffers, they love affair with the press is pretty much one sided.

It seems all this transparency is actually a one-way mirror. They can see out, but we can't see in.

More troubling, perhaps, is that the White House now sets the policy at Hunter College High School...
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

PreviousNext

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron