Recent Supreme Court Rulings

[Radar]

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.

[glatt]

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.

[Elspode]

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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by glatt

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

Wow, my wish just may come true!!

Justice Souter's home may be seized to build hotel

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America.

[Happy Monkey]

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

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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 -

Amendment V
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

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.

At least eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

Well, now we know where to move to.

[cjjulie]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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

so your saying if your family, along with many other families on the street, owned a nice but small piece of property across the street from the water and a developer came along and proposed to the town that he wanted to build high end condominiums and upscale shops where the houses are standing and have been handed down for generations, you would say that was fair???? Just so the town could make more tax revenue (or is the trickle down theory, you pay me, I pay him, he pays her, it goes through, the 3 of us get rich what do we care)

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Elspode

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

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.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[Griff]

Naturally the NYTimes sides with government landgrabbers.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But when then grab the family farm to build a fucking golf course...that's wrong.

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

[jaguar]

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

[hot_pastrami]

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.

[Elspode]

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.