Recent Supreme Court Rulings
 

Today the Supreme Court of the United States ruled against private property ownership. They said that any town can take away your property for the benefit of other private citizens if they feel it's in the "best interests" of the town. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

The freedom of any nation can be measured in how much they protect private property ownership. All of our rights come from private property ownership. The most recent rulings of the Supreme Court are a kick in the groin to the founding fathers and to everything that America stands for. It's essentially dipping the Constitution in shit and setting it on fire. These decisions prove that there is no part of the government that isn't working against the people of America and claim that the government owns our bodies, our property, and anything else it wants. It says the government's powers are unlimited, and that we are nothing but property of the government. It's full-blown Communism.

:mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

I don't often agree with Radar. This is a VERY BAD decision. He's not over-reacting.

I hope that the Justices who voted for this have their homes taken away to build malls.

It isn't Communism. It is economic Imperialism. Converting the use of private property for the use of special interests by force.

The Supremes are just warming up for when three of their number are replaced by some *really* scary people.

:worried: For once I'm with Scalia and Thomas...

When I first saw the report on Yahoo I thought the same thing. This is a developer's wet dream.

The justices said that under the 5th Amendment, property could be taken -

However, the definition of 'public' can be stretched. This isn't just a new issue. Most of the 'superblocks' in Manhattan are built on condemned buildings, and the new buildings are private property.

Well, now we know where to move to.

Come on, Els, that doesn't even make sense. It was the historically liberal judges who voted FOR it, and the conservative judges who voted against it. If he gets the chance at all, Bush will most likely nominate someone who would have voted against it too.

No, Bush would probably pick someone with a corporate law background and a pro-business stance.

This really pisses me off. I see this going on all around me but it's usually for "open space" which is a debatable public good.
But when then grab the family farm to build a fucking golf course...that's wrong.
So very fucking wrong, I think I would have to make a stand. :rattat:

Naturally the NYTimes sides with government landgrabbers.

not sure about communism but certainly madness. Ties in nicely with this.

Like those bastards in Coatesville? I couldn't agree more. :rar:

I saw this news story last night. There are a lot of news stories which unsettle me these days, but few that make me fume. This was one of the rare latter.

It really does seem that we are rapidly approaching a tipping point in the US, after which we will be completely stripped of the ever-shrinking list of freedoms we enjoy. Our supreme court has spoken, and now all Americans have the right to keep their own property unless someone with more money wants it. What a disgrace.

I am a pretty easygoing person, but if it was MY home, I'd be chained to something solid inside, and armed. No doubt I'd be forcibly disarmed and arrested, but that's the sort of thing that needs to happen to show Americans that they now live in a country where if you don't want to sell your nice house to someone with more money, the police will come and remove you from it. Free nation, my ass.

It is the whole "fair market value" thing that bothers me. If this is all about Free Enterprise making a blighted area a better place, why doesn't it start with Free Enterprise ponying up however much money it takes to get people to *want* to sell their houses?

Market Value - $250,000
Sells for - $3.9 million

Yeah, that would probably make people feel a little better.

Good point. The "value" of any object is defined by how desirable it is. By virtue of the fact that some entity with lots of money wants to build something there, it's value should be increased dramatically; but the "fair market value" given to the owner in these instances is based on it's value BEFORE the rich entity wanted it. What a racket.

Let's see. I've got a house that has been in my family for 4 generations. It's the only thing that's been consistent and has a hundred years of memories in it. What's the market value on that?

In Japan, they only do it for things like a freeway. Not for private business. When they use eminent domain, they come to your house and do an audit. They did it with my ex-wife's grandmother. They counted every bush, every tree, each and every Koi fish in the pond, etc. and paid her for all of it.

In America, many towns have condemned property in order to call it a blight and use eminent domain and to pay the owner a fraction of what the costs are. I've heard of the power company doing this with someone just recently. I think if eminent domain is going to be used by anyone, they should not pay you for the house. They should be required build a new house of the same or better quality in a location that is equally desirable and valuable, to pay all of your moving expenses, the costs involved in switching over utilities, and provide a certain amount of maintenance if things break down in the house...and they should be immune from all property taxes.