Liberal Left Wing Supreme Court Strikes Down Property Rights!

[JamesSD]

Correction

Anyone who calls Anthony Kennedy a "Left Wing Justice" faces immediate credibility issues.

Kennedy is probably the most moderate of the current court, followed by Sandra Day O'Conner.

Of the nine justices you have 3 hard conservatives (Rehnquist, Scalia and his puppet Thomas), 4 liberals (Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens) and two moderates who lean right, Kennedy and O'Conner.

I don't love this ruling, but I trust the wisdom of our highest court, except justices named Thomas. Generally they've been a good bunch as a whole, taking pretty moderate positions with careful wordings that don't overstep their intended purposes.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Anyone who calls Anthony Kennedy a "Left Wing Justice" faces immediate credibility issues.

Kennedy is probably the most moderate of the current court, followed by Sandra Day O'Conner.

Of the nine justices you have 3 hard conservatives (Rehnquist, Scalia and his puppet Thomas), 4 liberals (Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens) and two moderates who lean right, Kennedy and O'Conner.

I don't love this ruling, but I trust the wisdom of our highest court, except justices named Thomas. Generally they've been a good bunch as a whole, taking pretty moderate positions with careful wordings that don't overstep their intended purposes.

Like them or not, what they have done his is essentially destroy the right of individual citizens to own property. And they should all be castigated for it.

 

[KarenAM]

In the broad sense, this ruling is part of a general trend toward shifting power into the hands of government, which itself has become unduly influenced by special interests of various kinds. What's unsettling is that the concept of private property exists not merely as a part of our economic system, but our political and social one as well. American democracy is based upon, and cannot survive long without, the freedom of its citizens to own property and manage their lives with only the minimum neccisary government interference, a criteria of interference that this case clearly did not meet.

Decisions like this one have the very real risk of eventually making this country into a country of haves and have-nots with no one in-between. The Supreme Court screwed this one up, I'm afraid.

 

[Couture]

You can still rent

 

[amicus]

Youse guys are great and gave me much pleasure...but I have been away from my den, watching grandchildren for a week, and have been doing boogers and poo, so I am not quite up to yu, at the moment...but. I will return...

"trust me," he smiled...

amicus the befuddled...

 

[amicus]

ozymandiask ...I need to think about you....

Neville Shute Norway told me a bit about you Aussies, in a Town called Alice, hmm, I think it was that....and On the Beach, by the same author, was also set downunder...I will get back to you...but as I recall Australia was populated by english prisoners?

But perhaps my memory has lapses....


you might dip a toe with me before you plunge...


amicus...

 

[Pure]

amicus fades gracefully from view.

"I know it's life liberty and property, I wish I could remember whereit says so.

That's gotta be it, why can't they see it.

'Life, dignity, and community', that's socialism, I know I read that somewhere, and it's wrong why don't they see it?

"Property, that's it. Don't take mine. Why? Because it's mine. Why? It's mine becuase I have a right to it.

Why? It's mine 'cuz it's mine, cuz it's mine and only pinkos, queers, and pacifists and America haters say any different." And who'd've known Justice Kennedy was one of them.

 

[Guest]

Watch some small town somewhere use this to Eminent Domain a Wal-Mart and sell the property to people wanting to open small stores.

Ah, the fun will begin.

 

[cloudy]

No one sees the hypocrisy in complaining about this now but me?

C'mon, folks, stealing land has been going on for centuries, and rationalized in a million different ways. This is nothing new!

edited to add: the government that the folks created when they came here is coming back to bite you in the ass. All I have to say is you got exactly what you asked for.

(don't take that as me agreeing with it, because I don't, but it's still funny as hell)

 

[amicus]

Pure: "..."I know it's life liberty and property, I wish I could remember whereit says so..."


I wondered how long it would take for someone to spot that and make note; it was not accidental.

There is a wider definition of 'property' than just real estate.

One cannot enjoy the 'right' of life and liberty without a full concept of how life and liberty are expressed.

I make a stone axe or knife, a tool for cutting things. I made it, it is mine, I own it, it is 'my' property; I have a 'right' to it.

The same is true of my deerskin blouse and my bearskin jacket.

It is true also for my wigwam or teepee, that I built with my own crafty little paws.

'Property' in a wider definition, identifies those objects that sustain my life. Without the protected right to 'own' property I would be at the mercy of others to supply me with the necessities.

The 'rights' I often speak of are possessed by individuals and are axiomatic with life itself. Rights are not granted by others, nor by government.

I also possess the 'right' to defend my life and those properties that sustain it. I can do that by carrying a six shooter on my hip, or I can hire a sheriff or on a wider scale, the Marine Corps, to protect me from thieves and burglars and those 'Leftists' who claim they have a 'right' to steal from me for the greater good.

So, yes, "Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of Happiness"

When I rewrote the Constitution some twenty years ago, I changed a few things.


amicus the intolerable...

 

[Pure]

amicus philosophizing:

There is a wider definition of 'property' than just real estate.

One cannot enjoy the 'right' of life and liberty without a full concept of how life and liberty are expressed.

I make a stone axe or knife, a tool for cutting things. I made it, it is mine, I own it, it is 'my' property; I have a 'right' to it.

The same is true of my deerskin blouse and my bearskin jacket.

It is true also for my wigwam or teepee, that I built with my own crafty little paws.

'Property' in a wider definition, identifies those objects that sustain my life. Without the protected right to 'own' property I would be at the mercy of others to supply me with the necessities.

The 'rights' I often speak of are possessed by individuals and are axiomatic with life itself. Rights are not granted by others, nor by government.

So many claims, so little evidence or logic.

You claim to know the rights 'axiomatic' with life itself. A bird builds a nest, in part to sustain her (and her children's) lives. Does the bird 'own' the nest? Is the nest the bird's property? If a larger bird takes over the nest, expelling the residents, is that theft and assault? The answers are, in all cases, 'no.'

In any case we are talking 'private property', i.e., that owned by an individual, and its far from clear that a tribe, for instance has to have ANY private property, other than a supply of weapons or implements communally owned. So much for the 'life itself' argument.


Your other statement is also silly, though you've inserted 'xx' (quotes) so as to make your position rather unclear.

I make a stone axe or knife, a tool for cutting things. I made it, it is mine, I own it, it is 'my' property; I have a 'right' to it.

I don't see how 'ownership' is created, nor why it is yours. (Why is 'my' in quotes?). If a lion kills an antelope, is it his, something he 'owns.' If a larger lion takes it, is that theft?

IF I divert a part of a river into a pond, does it become 'my' pond? Suppose some bears start using it and I can't any longer, did they steal my property.

In very brief, my wouldbe philosopher, there is no ownership or property or right to such prior to human society and the agreements and understandings of that society. It's the same for marriage, or adultery.

 

[amicus]

Well, my would be and continual critic, the concept of human rights, is just that, human. Not insentient animal life.

And although you do not seem to understand the concept of property, most do.

Perhaps if I told you that you own your physical body? It has certain needs to be met if the 'life' in that body is to be preserved. It is your property.

You also 'own' your thoughts and should you choose to express them in any of several ways, your intellectual 'property rights' are defended in our free society.

And the reason that women were considered property throughout most of human history is because it was doubted that they were sentient.

I still have my doubts on that issue.

chuckles....

amicus...

 

[Pure]

So you say I own my own body?

Can I then do with it as I please, e.g., put a tatoo on it? cut off my little finger (part of a gang initiation)? stop it from giving me further pains by cutting off its oxygen supply (putting a bag over my head, since I'm fed up with the pain of cancer)?

Are you claiming wherever there is human life, there is private property (individual ownership) [in external objectis such as axes, tipis, etc]? Any evidence for this? (please cite).

PS.

What makes you say an isolated individual human, in nature, has a 'right to live'?
What exactly does that mean? Can it be claimed from others, i.e., 'you're wrong to kill me, 'cuz I have a right to live'?

Should he (she)--isolated individual in nature-- encounter a larger and very hungry other person who decides to eat him (her), has there been a murder? a violation of a 'human right'?

Lacking a human society and its customs and laws, there are no 'human rights,' just as there are no thefts, murders, or adulteries. And if that society, say, exposes malformed infants (resulting in death), or as the Inuit are said to do (or have done) asks very old persons to voluntarily leave the community and shelter (resulting in death) to conserve food, there are no rights violations, in particular of a 'right a live.'

PPS. "Sentience" in the ordinary sense of the term--check the dictionary-- is not a feature that distinguishes humans from (other) animals, so all your arguments from that premise are defective. My dog is sentient.

 

[amicus]

Pure...

Sometimes I think you are just pulling my chain, or arguing just because I am so gawdawful obnoxious; at other times I catch a glimmer of why you post what you do in abject opposition to just about every thing I write.

I am however, pleased that you took the time to check the definition of 'sentience' and in the ordinary definition, you are quite correct.

Although, the 4th definition in my 14 pound Random House says: "The conscious mind."

Perhaps you could suggest another word that describes the difference between Homo Sapiens and the rest of the animal world?

I use the term to indicate a 'self aware' species, one that is concious of its own existence and mortality.


"...So you say I own my own body?

Can I then do with it as I please, e.g., put a tatoo on it? cut off my little finger (part of a gang initiation)? stop it from giving me further pains by cutting off its oxygen supply (putting a bag over my head, since I'm fed up with the pain of cancer)?

Are you claiming wherever there is human life, there is private property (individual ownership) [in external objectis such as axes, tipis, etc]? Any evidence for this? (please cite).

PS.

What makes you say an isolated individual human, in nature, has a 'right to live'?
What exactly does that mean? Can it be claimed from others, i.e., 'you're wrong to kill me, 'cuz I have a right to live'?

Should he (she)--isolated individual in nature-- encounter a larger and very hungry other person who decides to eat him (her), has there been a murder? a violation of a 'human right'?

Lacking a human society and its customs and laws, there are no 'human rights,' just as there are no thefts, murders, or adulteries. And if that society, say, exposes malformed infants (resulting in death), or as the Inuit are said to do (or have done) asks very old persons to voluntarily leave the community and shelter (resulting in death) to conserve food, there are no rights violations, in particular of a 'right a live.'..."

I pasted your comments to more easily refer to them....

"..."...So you say I own my own body?..."

I did not respond to that original post as I thought you were being flippant, I simply could not comprehend that any sane person would question whether or not they 'owned' themselves.

But if I read you correctly with the additional parts you added, then perhaps I can make an attempt at answering the questions.

My first four years at University was a quest to study Philosophy, formal philosophy and I studied them all, each and every one, some in much greater depth than others. And although that was forty years ago, I still retain some recall of the formalities of that study.

I am not going to drop a lot of big words on you to impress you or anyone else, but at least one is required to point you in a direction: 'epistemology' it is that branch of philosophy that investigates the origin and nature, methods and limits of human knowledge.

It seems to me that perhaps you are on a quest also, perhaps to understand just how humans acquire knowledge.

To put this in context, one must place oneself in the time period of those early thinkers and try to imagine their surroundings and the limited amount of knowledge that had accumulated 2500 years ago.

It is of course, the later philosophers that began thinking in the abstract and questioning even their own existence. They did quite as you are doing, demanding evidence and proof at every turn.

It became so confusing that scholars had to return to the works of Thales and Aristotle and rethink the formal rules of logic.

Logic is also a branch of philosophy, it is the 'science' that "...investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference." definition number one, Random House.

You began your argument by questioning if you 'own' your life.

You ended the argument by stating that no rights exist independent of the group, and that all those 'rights' are relative and subjective, depending upon the group and the powers that be.

I suggest you contemplate your navel and consider your existence as a separate entity in this universe.

Your ability to do this separates you from the animal kingdom and tags you with the title, 'man, the rational animal'.

If you truly have an interest in philosophy then you might explore 'cognitive' and the true definitions of 'reality' 'reason' and rationality.

Just as one must know chemical symbols and the periodic table of elements to study chemistry, there must be an agreement and an acceptance of the absolute meanings of words in philosophy before you can even discuss the discipline with others.

I am not being flippant or arrogant, just stating that if you do not accept the validity of such terms as 'absolute' 'axiomatic' 'self evident' and so on, then we cannot communicate but only argue.

When you reach a point of discovering just precisely why you own your body and then determine what is necessary to keep it functioning, then we can go on to the next level concerning defining 'rights' and why they exist independent of you and are inherent in the existence of the object under scrutiny.

But if you just want to call me names, thas okay too, I get a kick out of that.


amicus...the rational animal....

 

[Pure]

Un answered.

You say, you wonder if any sane person could fail to agree that they 'owned' themselves.

Well, I suppose a slave in Roman times might so agree, since he's owned by another.

But please answer these simple questions:

If I own my body:

1)Am I entitled to prevent someone from implanting something there (like a transister to improve my brain functioning)?

2)Am I entitled to cut off and extract a part of it, like say, 'my' kidney, which I've deceided to give to my ailing brother?

3) If my body is causing lots of pain, do I have the right to end its functioning, i.e., put a bag over my head, and deprive my body of oxygen to the point of death?
(After all, if I own a car, and it starts to malfunction, I have a right to incinerate it [in accord with existing bylaws].)

Since you deal in self evident axioms, please tell what answerss they self evidently give to these questions. (Answers that would be accepted by all rational persons.)

By the way, if you think I do have the above rights, would you say they are protected by or provided for in the US Constitution and B of R?

PS. I find my dog to be a 'rational animal.' I also believe he is conscious. So both of your proposed criteria for 'human' [versus other animals] do not hold up. (You have agreed 'sentience' does not hold up.).

 

[amicus]

Ah, I see, you think I am religious and hold that suicide is a sin?

Well, I am not and I restate again, you own your body and may do with it as you please, including the taking of your own life.

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit" In essence that provides you with an answer as to how those rights to your own body are protected by political documents.

Opposing and conflicting views within the US body of law, that it is legal to take the life if an unborn child, but illegal to take your own life or facilitate a 'Kervorkian' style physician assisted death. Although the State of Oregon, the last I heard, permits that but is under Federal pressure to change it.

There are some grey areas concerning children as parents are obligated to nurture and care for them but if government or social services believes you don't provide sufficient medical care when it conflicts with your faith, then the government can remove your parental rights to the child. The government demands also that you educate your children in an acceptable way, which I totally disagree with.

There is a grey area in mandatory immunizations also as a tiny percentage of children receiving childhood immunizations, will die from them.

If you think I support everything this government does, you are wrong. I have many areas of disagreement.

PS, you and your dog have to work out your own problems.


amicus....

 

[Pure]

Hi Amicus,

But please answer these simple questions:

If I own my body:

1)Am I entitled to prevent someone from implanting something there (like a transister to improve my brain functioning)?

2)Am I entitled to cut off and extract a part of it, like say, 'my' kidney, which I've deceided to give to my ailing brother?

3) If my body is causing lots of pain, do I have the right to end its functioning, i.e., put a bag over my head, and deprive my body of oxygen to the point of death?
(After all, if I own a car, and it starts to malfunction, I have a right to incinerate it [in accord with existing bylaws].)


Ah, I see, you think I am religious and hold that suicide is a sin?

No, I wondered if its justification was self evident, in your view.

Well, I am not and I restate again, you own your body and may do with it as you please, including the taking of your own life.

Well, then, following the questions above, and your apparent 'yes' and your 'do with it as you please', it follows that if some fellow, by force, gets a fetus growing in my body (my property, as you would have it), I can excise and discard said intruder/implant. Yes, perhaps the death of a human results, but you have already agreed, on the suicide issue, that the 'property right', to 'do as I see fit' may lead to the ending of a life.

Self evident.

 

[cloudy]

I see no one has bothered to wonder along with me why the sudden fuss about seizing land from those it belongs to.

Read this Op-ed piece today, and it sort of puts what I've been saying into perspective: Feeding America's Appetite for Land.

The last paragraph is harsh, but true: For the United States, it has always been about accumulating land, money and power. The Indian nations were the first victims of America's voracious appetite. But unlike the Iraqis, the United States does not need the military to carry out its agenda on the domestic front. It has the Supreme Court to do that for it.

It's not just happening to indigenous folks now, it's happening to everybody, and it's going to keep on happening.