Much of the electorate in my home and very Blue state of Massachusetts regularly and reflexively votes for the Democratic party, siding with what it believes is the party more concerned with the welfare of the poor, the weak, the helpless, and those less powerful in our institutions of government and commerce.
After this week if these folks still feel that way, they must be on some kind of drug.
The Supreme Court’s Kelo decision this week shows very clearly that those ideas identified as “conservative” by our popular media consistently give far more weight to the constitutional rights of individual citizens, be they rich or poor. Whereas liberal ideology (represented in this case by private developers, urban planners, local government, and the slight liberal majority of Supreme Court justices) are willing to dispense with even the constitutionally guaranteed property rights of a small number of un-influential people in order to implement a scheme which will repurpose a New London neighborhood, please a local Fortune 100 company, and no doubt make the developers a lot of money.
In view of this astounding decision, I have to ask my reflexively Democratic friends "Who to you think is protecting the rights of individuals and the powerless in the situation?". This case is far enough away from Boston that it will not likely register on our insular city. Had the Supreme Court decision instead evicted a group of cod fishermen from New Bedford, or some immigrants in Fall River, no doubt the righteous liberals on Morrissey Boulevard would be operating in full outrage mode. Instead the editorial pages are silent about Kelo, except for the Globe’s token conservative columnist, Jeff Jacoby.
The Supreme Court’s Kelo decision has certainly touched a nerve. I think the decision is a particularly difficult one for liberals to defend. I cannot imagine how its does not make them uncomfortable to be aligned with the interests of large commercial real estate developers and a huge pharmaceutical company against a small group of ethnic Italian property owners. Perhaps the Kelo decision will mark some kind of watershed that opens the eyes of our nominally conservative Blue voters to see more clearly who is playing their tune and who is not.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Nancy
Actually, this is a decision I would not have expected from ANY justice, regardless of conservative or liberal, which is why, I think, everybody is shocked & outraged, both conservatives & liberals. Neither 'party' can follow this twisted thinking and utterly depraved (IMO) judgement, which violates every standard of common sense, decency, and law. I've read the reasonings behind the majority opinion, and it STILL doesn't make sense, nor is it logical. I sincerely hope congress does the right thing and rewrites whatever they have to, to have this decision gutted & reversed.
2 - Harry Forbes
If "everybody is shocked & outraged, both conservatives and liberals", then why did the court split 5-4 along its normal ideological lines?
I conclude from the split that this decision does not violate "every standard of common sense, decency, and law" as you say, but rather violates conservative standards.
3 - Dave Nalle
Except, Harry, that Nancy is a frothing Bush-hating leftist, not a conservative.
This is a ruling which has people outraged regardless of their political leanings unless they're outright anti-property socialists or bizarre statist cryptofascists.
Dave
4 - RJ
The USSC is at it again!
When they aren't in favor of tossing AIDS patients in prison simply for utilizing a natural herb as a medicine for their incredibly painful and terminal ailment, they support the destruction of the property rights of citizens in favor of city officials and wealthy developers.
And the Leftists on the Court were on the wrong side of both cases...
5 - gonzo marx
to answer the original Question in the title of this Post..
no one
both parties are ruled by, fueled by, and beholden to one thing....Greed
neither have any Interest in providing for the Citizens of our Nation...just the special Interests that will finance their next campaigns, and give them cushy jobs in the private sector when they leave government
registered lobbyists in DC have doubled in the last 5 years...how can that be a good thing?
and this current SC decision just bloggles my mind..now i'm gonna hafta go and actually read the Opinions, because it just doesn't make any sense to me...
ah well....
Excelsior!
6 - Big Time Patriot
Which party protects “the little people” today?
Sadly, neither of the big two parties...
But I still have hopes the Democrats can be turned around... I'm not so sure about the party that thinks lack of inheritance tax will do anything but help foster an aristocracy in America.
I live in Seattle, where Jim McDermot is a safe incumbent, and people I know were saying What The Hell Was That All About?
As far as conservatives go, remember that George Bush never complained when eminent domain was used to build a new stadium where the primary beneficiary were the ralready rich owners (including himself).
7 - Dave Nalle
>>Sadly, neither of the big two parties...<<
At least there's something we can all agree on. Of course, there is a key difference in that the Republican party's policies are essentially just callously indifferent to the poor, while the Democrats make a practice of actively exploiting and oppressing them.
>>But I still have hopes the Democrats can be turned around...<<
That would require such radical change that they'd no longer be recognizable as the same party.
>> I'm not so sure about the party that thinks lack of inheritance tax will do anything but help foster an aristocracy in America.<<
Or perhaps see to it that family property stays in family hands and farmers sons don't have to sell their land to pay taxes and small business owners children don't have to shut down businesses when the parents die because of the tax liability connected to the transfer of assets associated with a family business. And of course there's the entire issue of encouraging investment and savings. But those are all bad things. They work against the apparent objective of the Democrats to make each generation poorer than the last and eventually drive everyone down into poverty and dependence on the state.
>>I live in Seattle, where Jim McDermot is a safe incumbent, and people I know were saying What The Hell Was That All About?<<
The fact that McDermot is a safe incumbent is about the most frightening thing you can say about the Democrats.
>>As far as conservatives go, remember that George Bush never complained when eminent domain was used to build a new stadium where the primary beneficiary were the ralready rich owners (including himself).<<
The Ballpark in Arlington was built on land which was in the right-of-way of two highways and had already been rendered virtually valueless because of it's location. Building it created hundreds of new, permanent jobs and revitalized a depressed and run-down part of the Dallas/FW metroplex, bringing in new businesses and lots and lots of secondary jobs associated with them. Maybe you should ask the people of Arlington if they feel like they got ripped off.
Dave
8 - RJ
Yabut-
BU$CH IZ HITLUR!!!
:-/
9 - Tristan
The estate tax didn't hurt the "little guy". It affected less than two percent of estates and half of the revenue it produced came from taxes on 0.16 percent of estates. These estates were worth an average of $17 million and belonged to just 3,300 families each year.
In fact, when the Senate was debating the issue, Russ Feingold offered an amendment to exempt the first one hundred million dollars of a couple's net worth before any estate taxes would be paid. Seems like this would exempt the family farms and small businesses that the Republicans were always talking about.
Alas, the amendment was defeated by a small 51-48 majority. (Not all Republicans are the lapdogs of big business)
10 - Nancy
Dave, Dave... you have SUCH a convenient memory. WHY did the SC come down the way they did? I don't know, since I'm hardly in their social circles to ask them, and they usually don't bother to explain. How do I know people on both sides of the partisan divide are outraged? Because I've discussed it at work, w/my neighbors, w/people at the grocery, gas station, bus stop, etc. All of them - and they're split pretty evenly between conservatives of one degree or other, and liberals - are pretty hot about this decision, for the same reasons. Surprise, surprise, eh? No, I DON'T quote think tanks, pundits, and 'experts'. IMO they all live in ivory towers: they have large, generous incomes, all kinds of connections, political and not, so job security is not an issue with them, they all seem to be lavishly covered as far as medical insurance and benefits by the organizations they prate for, and they have access to Important People + other pundits they can sit and BS with for hours at a time about stuff they know nothing about, and get PAID for it! Something the rest of us can't do. So, no: I don't listen to them (I frequently have to hear them, but I don't listen if I can avoid it), nor do I quote their inane pontifications, nor do I care what they think. The S.C. justices are also in this category of living in an artificial hothouse world. Being judges, they haven't had to deal with Real Life for years. Being S.C. judges, they haven't had to deal with reality for years - they deal in the realms of legal theory & abstraction. They are not subject to the same problems the "little people" (to quote Leona Helmsly) have to deal with, nor do they think the way a "normal" person does. So I can't explain the aberrance of their decision. Maybe you can since you mostly seem to base your arguments on theory & hypothesis in most of your economic & political blogging. I have to deal with reality, and I can't.
Am I a leftist? Not so. Am I a conservative? Not so. I have various positions on various issues; sometimes I'm to the left of Karl Marx; sometimes I'm to the right of Karl Rove. Sometimes I just don't give a damn. Am I a rabid Bush-hater? Absolutely you are correct about that, and I'm proud to be aligned against a president and administration that are corrupt, inept, greedy, and indifferent to the fate of the common citizens they're supposed to serve, but have betrayed on every level so far, instead.
Do I loathe the rich? Not all; only the ones that get richer at the expense of the poor, the middle class, the elderly, retirees, etc. Only the ones that already have plenty, but insist on having more. Only the ones that are willing to take their ill-gotten gains and use them to further erode working conditions for their fellow citizens, gradually reducing them to serfs in all but name, paying them non-living wages, cutting or removing benefits, stealing their pension funds yet ensuring that they themselves are richly rewarded, with obscene benefits & golden parachutes, even when they don't deserve them, having run said businesses into the ground. So far, your attitude seems to be that BushCo is just fine, anyone not supporting Smirk & his tower of misspeak (us little people call it "lying"; big words confuse us) is a traitor & a fool, the economy is just lovely, & these rich folks are hardly villains for cutting jobs or benefits, destroying lives and futures in the process, all to line their own already well-lined pockets - they're just doing what comes naturally. Snakes eat their prey alive, but that doesn't mean humans have to stoop to the same level.
So don't say I'm a leftist when you have no idea what I am. Hating Smirk doesn't automatically make me a liberal, nor do I have to be a conservative to be concerned about personal rights. Try to get away from labels and broaden your mind a bit, willya? You're starting to sound like Howard Dean or Ann Coulter.
11 - Jon Sobel
Well said, Nancy. Trying to fit this bizarre SC decision into the liveral-vs.-conservative debate just doesn't work. It seems to go against principles that most Americans of all political stripes hold dear.
12 - Nancy
"Bizarre" really is the word for it. Without exception, every single person I've discussed this with has gotten this ... look on their faces, shook their head, and used that word: bizarre. Even the most liberal.
13 - PseudoErsatz
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line dividing good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either--but through every human heart."
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn--Nobel Prize, Literature, 1970.
Until you get through you skull that every human being that has ever ventured out on the face of this earth--past, present and future--is just as capable of committing acts of evil as well as acts of charity, your 'us vs them' mentality is going to keep you stunted and ineffective as a human.
14 - Dan
This latest case of judicial activism is really not that surprising, in that the usual suspects (liberal judges) redefine the will of the founders and rule against both tradition and majority opinion.
Seisure of property for enhanced tax revenue clearly wasn't the intent of the imminent domain law since property tax wasn't even an issue in the founders time.
Arguably though, there can be a lot of public good to come from office buildings and stadiums, but the founders over-all emphasis on private property rights and respect for ownership should be enough to make their intentions clear. Intent, of course, is what the judges are appointed to decide.
If we are to evolve to this new definition of imminent domain, then the least they can do is to base "fair market value" not on what the property is, but what it is to become. Making the victims of government land grabs ridiculously rich millionaires might win popular opinion while simultaneously curbing excesses where the benefit for "common good" is marginal.
15 - Nancy
I'm all for that, Dan, and it makes sense. Right now, as far as I am aware, the entity that takes the land also sets the 'fair market value' via the tax assessment. It has happened, and is too easy, for government officials, knowing certain parcels are in the area to be developed, to lower the assessments, thus providing themselves w/cheaper reimbursement values, that do not even begin to allow the displaced homeowner to buy another house in the same area or reasonably close by. Some criteria ought to be set, including at the least, paying the displacees 'replacement value' (another aspect that might reign in over-quick land grabs...altho I like your idea of paying what it WILL be worth. In any events, the government entity itself should in no wise be the one to be setting the value.
16 - Dan
I agree Nancy. Artificially lowering assesments sounds criminal to me.
17 - Dave Nalle
Nancy:
>>Maybe you can since you mostly seem to base your arguments on theory & hypothesis in most of your economic & political blogging. I have to deal with reality, and I can't.<<
I live and work with the 'little people' every day and I have a pretty good idea of the challenges the face. If you read my articles most of them originate in an observation from day to day life and I then go look for stats to back up or explai n the observation.
>>Am I a leftist? Not so. Am I a conservative? Not so. I have various positions on various issues; sometimes I'm to the left of Karl Marx; sometimes I'm to the right of Karl Rove. Sometimes I just don't give a damn. Am I a rabid Bush-hater? Absolutely you are correct about that, and I'm proud to be aligned against a president and administration that are corrupt, inept, greedy, and indifferent to the fate of the common citizens they're supposed to serve, but have betrayed on every level so far, instead.<<
Nancy, I admire your spirit, but what you are - as far as I can tell - is mostly ill-informed and driven by emotion rather than logic.
>>Do I loathe the rich? Not all; only the ones that get richer at the expense of the poor, the middle class, the elderly, retirees, etc. <<
The rich support the many charities which our nation can be justly proud of. Many of them give enormous amounts, far more than they pay in taxes.
>>Only the ones that already have plenty, but insist on having more. Only the ones that are willing to take their ill-gotten gains and use them to further erode working conditions for their fellow citizens, gradually reducing them to serfs in all but name, paying them non-living wages, cutting or removing benefits, stealing their pension funds yet ensuring that they themselves are richly rewarded, with obscene benefits & golden parachutes, even when they don't deserve them, having run said businesses into the ground.<<
This is a TINY minority, and they are committing crimes when they do this. They get arrested, fined, imprisoned and cease to be a problem.
I come from a background of family businesses and what you aren't seeing is that the attacks on the wealthy malefactors also do harm to family businesses and the people who work for them, and those folks don't deserve it.
>> So far, your attitude seems to be that BushCo is just fine, anyone not supporting Smirk & his tower of misspeak (us little people call it "lying"; big words confuse us) is a traitor & a fool, <<
Fool maybe, but never a traitor. I don't support Bush 100%, but on the things he's done right I have to give him credit. It's better than hating everything he's done just because he did it and you hate him.
>>the economy is just lovely, & these rich folks are hardly villains for cutting jobs or benefits, destroying lives and futures in the process, all to line their own already well-lined pockets - they're just doing what comes naturally. <<
Except that they aren't doing that. Aside from a few well publicized villains, most of the capital class are building jobs, growing the economy and making life better for everyone.
Dave
18 - Nancy
Maybe in your neighborhood, but the people I live among are but a paycheck away from disaster & homelessness, and affordable housing for them is nonexistent.
19 - Jon Sobel
"I live and work with the 'little people' every day and I have a pretty good idea of the challenges they face."
Heh. You sound like Tom Cruise explaining why he knows better than EVERYBODY ELSE what psychiatry is all about. Who are these "little people" and in what sense are you "larger" than they? Or do you speak AS a "little person?" If so, how has your personal experience led you to the positions you take?
The challenges low-income people face are exacerbated, not reduced, by the capital class you speak so highly of. Citing the contributions rich people make to charity as a justification for policies that benefit the wealthy on the backs of the poor is just laughable. On practically every single issue, the "capital class" lobbies against policies that would help the poor. This is demonstrated again and again by impartial economic analyses. Yet those on the Right remain wilfully blind, believing that somehow an unchecked, unregulated marketplace will lift all boats.
20 - Victor Plenty
Rising tide not so good when buried up to neck in mudflats, even if it does raise all boats.
21 - Nancy
ROTFLOL, Victor! Priceless!
22 - Dave Nalle
>>Maybe in your neighborhood, but the people I live among are but a paycheck away from disaster & homelessness, and affordable housing for them is nonexistent.<<
You don't live where I live, Nancy. Conditions are not the same everywhere in the country, suggesting that the solution to the problem in your area is for people to move to places where jobs literally go begging at starting wages substantially higher than minimum wage.
Dave
23 - Dave Nalle
>>Heh. You sound like Tom Cruise explaining why he knows better than EVERYBODY ELSE what psychiatry is all about. Who are these "little people" and in what sense are you "larger" than they? Or do you speak AS a "little person?" If so, how has your personal experience led you to the positions you take?<<
I'm not a little person or a big person, I'm just a person. I may make more money than some and less than others, but I interract with many people and talk with them and about their lives and the lives of people they know and the result is that I do get an idea what their lives are like. I imagine many people live in a way where they interract with others and get an idea of their life and their situations. I can't believe it's uncommon. I probably do get to meet and talk to more people than most because of the work I do and the organizations I'm active with, some of which bring me into contact with the very poor.
>>The challenges low-income people face are exacerbated, not reduced, by the capital class you speak so highly of. <<
Although this is a common belief, it's just not true. Growth in wealth does not come at the expense of other people. Growth in wealth in the wealthier classes benefits those at lower levels in the economy through job creation and economic growth.
>>Citing the contributions rich people make to charity as a justification for policies that benefit the wealthy on the backs of the poor is just laughable.<<
That's not the context in which I cited them. I was just pointing out that all rich people are not evil as Nancy seems to believe.
>> On practically every single issue, the "capital class" lobbies against policies that would help the poor. This is demonstrated again and again by impartial economic analyses. <<
Show me a source on this, because it just doesn't make any sense. The only way you can say this is if you assume that whatever helps the wealthy hurts the poor, which just is not true.
>>Yet those on the Right remain wilfully blind, believing that somehow an unchecked, unregulated marketplace will lift all boats.<<
They believe this because it's true and born out again and again in practice.
Dave
24 - gonzo marx
Mr Nalle sez...
*They believe this because it's true and born out again and again in practice.*
so unregulated business lifts all, eh?
like Enron and Worldcom?
like those humanitarian pharmaceutical companies that brought us things like thalidomide?
i'm all for ethical capitalism, i think it is crucial to economic freedom...
but if you believe that "business" interests that have only the goal of increasing this quareters bottom line will behave in an ethical fashion without outside oversight and regulation then might i suggest you do and take in the healing vapors from some power plants smokestack
too many times over this simple thing...ethical business good...unregulated greed bad
nuff said?
Excelsior!
25 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, I didn't say business should be totally unregulated. But keeping an open business environment leads to business growth which is good for the economy as a whole and thus helps everyone.
Obvious abusive companies need to be regulated or shut down, and for the most past that's happened - Enron and Worldcom didn't get away with it, now did they, plus prosecuting them sent a message to other companies.
Dave