Forget the Flag issue...the Supreme Court just SCREWED you!

[colehart]

The person that initiates the take over of my property for private use will not be a happy person when they face me.

 

[Annie]

The person that initiates the take over of my property for private use will not be a happy person when they face me.

I have to agree with you. There is something to be said for picking an area that has lots of building on it, but that isn't always what is wanted.

If GW doesn't respond strongly to this, well all I can say is that tpahl may have been right, with his asshat candidate, after all.

 

[dilloduck]

Once again, the ruling allows states to define what "public use" actually means. In this case, the court ruled that Connecticuts current definition, or lack thereof was Constitutional. I have already said, I find the court's reasoning to be dubious at best, but the majority's decision s Many states already have in their laws and/or Constitutions strongly worded definitions of what "public use" means in terms of eminent domain. This decision does not overturn those guidelines. There will be an outcry amongst voters and legislators will listen. You will see in initiative states, ballot issues to strictly define what "public use" is, and I guarantee you the Supreme Court won't overturn those standards. In other states, the legislatures will act to set strict standards. The ruling was actually based, by the way, on another decision in a previous SCOTUS decision written by none other than Justice Sandra Day O'Conner.

Here's an interesting, non-partisan analysis of the decision:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/06/supreme-court-eminent-domain-ruling.php


acludem

Enough of the fortune telling BS. You have no idea what will happen on the state level HOWEVER you DO know that it is much simpler for the ACLU to out-finance and out-lawyer local governments. I plan to watch your dangerous group of traitors use this BS decision to your advantage since you have been quite successful in your other attempts at imposing communism in America.

 

[Bonnie]

Once again, the ruling allows states to define what "public use" actually means. In this case, the court ruled that Connecticuts current definition, or lack thereof was Constitutional. I have already said, I find the court's reasoning to be dubious at best, but the majority's decision s Many states already have in their laws and/or Constitutions strongly worded definitions of what "public use" means in terms of eminent domain. This decision does not overturn those guidelines. There will be an outcry amongst voters and legislators will listen. You will see in initiative states, ballot issues to strictly define what "public use" is, and I guarantee you the Supreme Court won't overturn those standards. In other states, the legislatures will act to set strict standards. The ruling was actually based, by the way, on another decision in a previous SCOTUS decision written by none other than Justice Sandra Day O'Conner.

Here's an interesting, non-partisan analysis of the decision:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/06/supreme-court-eminent-domain-ruling.php


acludem

Actually right now it's only three states that have such definitive laws as to what constitutes (pardon pun) public use.. my state happens to be one of them but even that hasn't stopped developers attempts to wipe out a whole town mainstreet full of businesses/residences (upper middleclass) restuarants, photography studio, dress boutique, old fashioned ice cream/candy store, and antique sstore... For a giant health spa... This court ruling, unless a miracle happens was their biggest hope to block the developers from having carte blanche.

 

[nakedemperor]

This is an abomination !!!! Now any big business developer with political influence can seize and take away your home or private property in the name of "public use".

If a liberal ever tells you again that they are "against big business" and "for the little guy", shove this issue in their faces!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property

No one is for the little guy, liberal or conservative. Under the pro-big business Bush administration the number of lobbyists in Washington has DOUBLED since 2000. That is mind-boggling. Neither side has any legitimate claim to taking the high ground; it seems everyone in a position of power right now is slave to the almighty dollar.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No one is for the little guy, liberal or conservative. Under the pro-big business Bush administration the number of lobbyists in Washington has DOUBLED since 2000. That is mind-boggling. Neither side has any legitimate claim to taking the high ground; it seems everyone in a position of power right now is slave to the almighty dollar.

The liberal judges did this. And all the conservative talk show hosts I heard were outraged. Libs are trying to justify this. Like acludem, what a fraud.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The liberal judges did this. And all the conservative talk show hosts I heard were outraged. Libs are trying to justify this. Like acludem, what a fraud.

Sorry, but the Supreme Court that made this decision is the same one that put Dubbyuh in office in 2000...And you're whining about them being liberal!?!

 

[theim]

Sorry, but the Supreme Court that made this decision is the same one that put Dubbyuh in office in 2000...And you're whining about them being liberal!?!

I agree. This isn't liberal, its Communist.

 

[KarlMarx]

An assault on private property is an assault on freedom....

This court also upheld the Campaign Finance Reform Bill (McCain Feingold) which put restrictions on political speech (if that isn't a First Amendment right, then nothing is).

Some of the justices in the Supreme Court should be put on impeachment charges.

 

[Annie]

Since SCOTUS ruled, until there is a case to break that precedent, it's unlikely to change. What can be effective is if we all badger the local governments and state governments to act! Like it or not, that is where so many battles are going to be fought; eventually abortion, gay marriage, right to die, etc. I never thought 'property rights from private via eminent domain, but there we have it:


http://sneakingsuspicions.com/a0619070205.htm#062605

June 26, 2005
Accept the Invitation

The strong reaction to the Supreme Court's Kelo decision last week is encouraging.

It's nice to know that millions of fellow citizens have not lost their sense of appropriate righteous indignation about serious risks to their civil rights.

For all the hand-wringing about the potential impact of this eminent domain opinion, however, I think that Justice Stephens's opinion for the 5-4 majority also signaled the best solution to the risk that Kelo will be followed in short order by a wave of new and objectionable takings:

We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised. [notes omitted]​

All true. Now's the time to add to those existing limitations.

For example, Delaware's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control can be the recipient of open space by a bequest, or it can buy the property in a normal transaction, but it can't use eminent domain to convert citizen's property into parkland for the rest of us. My clients at DelDOT can use their eminent domain authority for transportation purposes, but that's the extent of their power to condemn property.

I discussed Delaware's constitutional limits on eminent domain a while ago, citing a 1986 decision that barred the Wilmington Parking Authority from taking a swath of private property for the primary benefit of the Wilmington News-Journal. Wilmington Parking Authority v. Land with Improvements, 521 A.2d 227 (Del. 1986).

As Kelo shows, the ability to use eminent domain to remove blight is where the real risks are; one man's middle-class bungalow can be someone else's eyesore.

The folks who really, really don't like the result in Kelo have an obvious path to obtain the policy choices they prefer. State legislation and, better yet, state constitutional amendments can limit eminent domain powers to the provision of clearly public purposes such as transportation, schools, and prisons. Even in those areas where blight reduction or elimination is accepted as an appropriate use of this extraordinary authority, there should also be some commonly accepted, strict standards that define blight in terms that the community as a whole would accept.

Given the overwhelmingly negative reaction to New London's example, it looks to me that the nation's citizens should accept the Court's invitation to deal with the issue with their state and local legislators.

It certainly provides a useful reminder of the benefits of the federal system. There's nothing about Kelo that says what happened in New London has to happen everywhere else.

UPDATE: See Virginia Postrel's post for an example of the limiting legislation I'm suggesting here.

 

[no1tovote4]

No one is for the little guy, liberal or conservative. Under the pro-big business Bush administration the number of lobbyists in Washington has DOUBLED since 2000. That is mind-boggling. Neither side has any legitimate claim to taking the high ground; it seems everyone in a position of power right now is slave to the almighty dollar.

Sigh, the justice of coin-operated government. The SCOTUS is supposed to be beyond this kind of thing though....

 

[Bonnie]

No one is for the little guy, liberal or conservative. Under the pro-big business Bush administration the number of lobbyists in Washington has DOUBLED since 2000. That is mind-boggling. Neither side has any legitimate claim to taking the high ground; it seems everyone in a position of power right now is slave to the almighty dollar.

Well NE it was 4 liberal justices and one moderate judge that said to homeowners and business owners "tough shit" and four very conservative justices and one liberal who were for not only for the little guy but for actually adhering to the actual contents of the Constitution in making their dissenting opinions.

 

[Bullypulpit]

An assault on private property is an assault on freedom....

This court also upheld the Campaign Finance Reform Bill (McCain Feingold) which put restrictions on political speech (if that isn't a First Amendment right, then nothing is).

Some of the justices in the Supreme Court should be put on impeachment charges.

Money does not equal speech. It buys access, which is not the same as free speech.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I agree. This isn't liberal, its Communist.

It would be communist if the property seized under this ruling was to be collectivized, which it's not. Rather it is being turned over to private developers for their use. Sounds rather more like fascism to me.