June 23, 2005

National Tragedy

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

So as of today, if your home town thinks your land would be much more valuable with a gas station on in instead of your house, farm or whatever, all they have to do is give you what they determine is "just compensation," sign the land over to its new owner, and then bring in the bulldozers.

What - you don't like it? Your family has been on that land for generations? Tough !@#$! - get out or the cops will come in a drag you and your family out by force. There's absolutely no one in the world you can go to and argue your point. The highest court in the land just declared that it is A-OK! Welcome to the new Socialist States of America!

I don't see this ending well...

Posted by: Big Daddy at June 23, 2005 10:58 AM

Thomas, again, get's it right in his dissent. I'm sure Blake will quote from it. Dang, I'm @!#$'d over this!!!

Posted by: Big Daddy at June 23, 2005 11:03 AM

What happened to the so-called conservative majority on the court? Shouldn't conservatives rally behind "economic development" since they are always pro-business? Seems like they honor the idea of not re-writing the constitution, unlike the moderates and liberals on the court.

Is it any wonder the Democrats don't want to give up the advise and consent filibuster?

"Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion. O’Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion."

Posted by: Ronj at June 23, 2005 11:03 AM

Shut the hell up RonJ. What the hell are you rambling on about with filibuster advise and consent? The justices that the current democrats wouldn't support are the ones that dissented.

The real supreme court conservatives are the ones that dissented.

Posted by: James at June 23, 2005 11:11 AM

This may never effect me, but the SC seems to be making the rules up as they go along. I am ashamed of the government right now.

Posted by: gunner at June 23, 2005 11:46 AM

More BS from the robed oligarchy.

Posted by: Glen Dean at June 23, 2005 11:50 AM

Did this happen in the US or Zimbabwe?

Posted by: Stickman at June 23, 2005 11:53 AM

Just one more reason we should have limits on these jerks in the SCOTUS. Obviously they're sucking in bad air.

Bastards...

Posted by: Miss O'Hara at June 23, 2005 12:20 PM

You monkey, this was not the act of Socialism. This was the ultimate result of Capitalism unleased.

It wasn't the state that took over these people's homes, it was Big Business. Big Business (Big Money) now has power over the individual.

Posted by: Kevin at June 23, 2005 12:30 PM

Putting aside the personal property issue for a moment (as bad as this ruling is for citizens), if I'm reading this correctly, now a corporation can go to a local government and petition for an imminent domain claim using the local government as it's "heavy" against another corporation, small business, or propriatorship of commercial property - all in the interest of generating higher tax revenues for a local government. For example, if a barber has a shop on a piece of land - a gas station company can now come in and convince the local government to take the property from them since gas taxes would generate higher tax revenue.

This is NOT what this nation was founded on and this ruling takes one of the most important liberties we've enjoyed in this country and essentailly given a HUGE boost to corporate welfare.

If there was ever a time to clear house on the SCOTUS - now is it.

Posted by: DocB at June 23, 2005 12:30 PM

As usual, Kevin is oblivious to reality. Big Business does not control our Supreme Court. 5 liberal Injustices do. And when they decide to make up new laws they just write them as we've seen today.

With the exception of Scalia, these are the same Supreme Court Injustices from the Raich case who re-wrote the interstate commerce clause to mean "intrastate" commerce.

It is not overstating what has happened here today as anything less than a rebuke of all personal property rights by an unchecked branch of government that was originally designed to be the weakest branch. So many of our rights are derived from being secure in our homes and now the SC has done away with that. The "public good" can mean anything. Everyone doesn't have the money to take a case to the Supreme Court. The question now is how many thousands of people are going to have to fight against the "public good" every time local governments get to decide what that "good" is.

Posted by: smantix at June 23, 2005 12:53 PM

"Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty."

John Adams

Posted by: Big Daddy at June 23, 2005 12:56 PM

Here's another from Adams:

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is no force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist."

D!mn straight!

Posted by: Big Daddy at June 23, 2005 12:59 PM

Last time I checked, liberals were basically against private development.

Now the Supreme liberals think it's ok for Walmart to bulldoze your house and put up a Supercenter?

This is a joke, right?

Posted by: Mick Wright at June 23, 2005 01:10 PM

I do not agree with pulling our troops out of Iraq early. However, due to this new ruling by the Supreme Court I am all for bringing our Troops home and having them overthrow the Supreme Court judges who voted for this. Now, since I got that off my chest we need to fight this the correct way starting today...If you have not called your senator or congressman you need to do that and here is how you do it. 1-888-355-3588.

Creative Liberty

Posted by: Creative Liberty at June 23, 2005 01:18 PM

And for a terrific piece of liberal media bias - they run the title "Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes" and include a picture of Scalia laughing even though he voted against it. Typical.

Posted by: smantix at June 23, 2005 01:43 PM

This ruling is like the Court's using a "campaign finance" rationale to overturn First Amendment guarantees. We the People are in danger here. Nothing means what it says, fundamental principles can be overturned after centuries by mere judicial whim. How about an Amendment to abolish this "Supreme Court" and substitute a new Third Branch charged not with "interpreting" (sic) "the law" (which has become no such thing) but with referring perceived Constitutional issues to ex tempore Special Tribunals composed like juries of citizens vs. elitist little "Courters"? Any number of ways to do this, but the point is, over the last few years --regardless of nomination controversies-- the Court has proved itself no more a guardian of Americans' basic liberties than a thief in the night.

The Founders established the Court to defend liberty under the law. Self-indulgent protestations to the contrary, the Court has manifestly failed its bounden duty. When was the last time any precedent cited the Tenth Amendment, except perhaps as a default-to-zero proposition?

Start a dialogue! We're not entirely helpless against this constant chivvying and hustling, destructive of Federalism, dismissive of Free Speech and Property Rights, all for bureaucratic State aggrandizement as "incumbent preservation". This is how cultures, societies perish... but it doesn't have to be this way.

Forget the "flag burning" amendment. Let's upend lifetime judiciaries off their Bench, and get some real protection, as citizens and individuals, before everything falls to pieces. Remember: What is first allowed, becomes required. Won't be too long before homeowners have to post bond in escrow to local governments as surety they will not oppose corrupt official "takings". Give it five years at most-- just wait.

Posted by: John Blake at June 23, 2005 01:46 PM

One other thing we all need to do is write Pfizer. Let them know that we are truly disgusted with them as a business. Maybe if enough write to them it may cause them to reconsider. It won't solve the problem with the decision but it might help the immediate people in New London.

Posted by: BRBuchanan at June 23, 2005 02:08 PM

Geez. I live a couple blocks from Middle Tennessee St. U and we've joked for years about them turning our neighborhood into another parking lot. Suddenly it's not so funny anymore.

Posted by: KJ at June 23, 2005 02:27 PM

Cities and states have been playing this game for quite a while now. I had high hopes for this case--meaning I was hoping that the Supreme Court would uphold a founding principle of not just our nation--but civilization for gosh sakes--and that is property rights.

If you can seize property for reasons of generating more money for the gov't treasury, then I think a change in is order.

Erase "In God we Trust" from the dollar---Replace with: "In the dollar we trust."

Of course you know this is consistent with the "other" assualt on property owners--and that is tax abatements for chosen companies who "generate revenue" while the average joe continues to pay on his home or small business.

Posted by: Terry at June 23, 2005 02:42 PM

I have a couple of posts up on this as well.

http://tinyurl.com/arwfx
http://tinyurl.com/8vwb2

Posted by: Dave Justus at June 23, 2005 03:36 PM

Eminent Domain Abuse

Posted by: Ashish Hanwadikar at June 23, 2005 03:48 PM

Hey James,

What are you talking 'bout? You want more folks like Souter and Ginsberg on there? Moderates like Kennedy? That's what the whole filibuster debate has really been about, changing this court. Not the appeals court or district courts. And they've just shown that they have the ultimate power.

Posted by: Ronj at June 23, 2005 03:57 PM

It is the the 5 Liberal 'injustices' who want to take this land away from the individual property owners - it's big business capitalist interests. The supreme court just voted to take a "hands off" approach to what local governments do in this situation.

Posted by: at June 24, 2005 01:14 AM

That should read: It isn't the 5 Liberal 'injustices'...

Posted by: at June 24, 2005 01:15 AM

There are many things about this ruling that are just frightening. Thinking about all the potential ramifications of this new 'taking' power, it seems nearly limitless.

One of the most frightening potential abuses is the way this new power could be used for political retribution. Think about it. Steve Gill and Phil Valentine better watch what they say about Jimmy Naifeh from now on.

At a moment's notice, Naifeh could call up a few friendly developers and be looking over some survey maps, with Gill and Valentine's properties circled in red.

Posted by: Todd Adams at June 24, 2005 07:49 AM

I've seen the "capitalism unleashed" line so much it's making me dizzy. Here's a lesson in true capitalism. I own a home and perhaps a private company wants to buy the land it sits on along with several of my neighbors's homes to put a commercial development on. The land is zoned private, but if the company can purchase all of the homes, then it should be easy to change the zoning. So this company approaches us individually and offers us the market rate for our homes. We refuse to sell. At this point a true capitalist will either find other land or they will offer us more money until we can't refuse. Now the private companies can offer below fair cost and when people won't sell, they can go to the local government and get condemnations of the property. Mugabe has come to the USA.

It got me to thinking, who pays no taxes? Look for churches to lose their property under this Supreme Court decision. It is a hallmark of Communist governments to attempt to stamp out religion.

Posted by: wallybangs at June 24, 2005 08:12 AM

Wow, has this stirred people up. Almost nowhere can I find someone in support of Kelo. This abominable decision sure points out the disconnect between the governing class and the general population.

In an effort to lower the temperature a little, maybe this will give someone a laugh.

http://themoteingodseye.blogspot.com/

Posted by: G. Hamid at June 24, 2005 01:21 PM

So, with this week's decision on private property
takings and the Fifth Amendment and a different issue
two years ago, the Supreme Court says this to the
people: The government has no business in your
bedroom, but if it wants to drive a bull-dozer through
it, that's just peachy!

Who the Hell hired these black robed henchmen of King
George III? More to the point, how do we fire them?

I think the founders had a couple of answers; time to try another!

Posted by: Orson Olson at June 24, 2005 11:24 PM

Socialism is all about the planned economy. The city has a better plan than the individual owners.

This is rent seeking pure and simple.

Generally when business collaborates with government to violate property rights it is a form of socialism.

Always invoking the "greater good" because if "good" did not actually increase it would be evil in toto.

Posted by: M. Simon at June 25, 2005 11:47 AM

I'm a full-on supporter of property rights. But I think Kelo properly decided--and indistinguishable from Midkiff.

http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2005/06/road-not-taken.html

Unrestricted eminent domain would be unconstitutional. But Kelo demands no such thing. The Constitution doesn't compel Federal Courts to substitute their judgment for elected municipal officials.

Kelo is a pro-conservative, pro-Federalism decision that bolsters a bit of judicial deference commonly confined to the legal endangered species list. Not all developers are scum; not every Mayor's on the take--if the are, call the cops and vote against crooked councilmen next November.

I'm quite conservative--which is why I'm puzzled that Kelo critics on the Right sound like anti-Wal-Mart kooks. Look to state and municipal government, not federal courts, for redress. And don't assume the sky is falling.

Posted by: No Oil for Pacifists at June 25, 2005 09:39 PM

Have you lost your mind? The highest court in the land just decided that Wal-Mart or any other big-money corporation could have my 4th generation family farm if it is a good location to bring in the best revenue and it matters not whether I want to leave. How is this not a bad thing? How can that mean anything other than I don't own the property that has a deed with my name on it? How is that not a complete and blatant departure from the rights and securities the 5th amendment was designed to protect?

Posted by: Jakester at June 27, 2005 09:32 AM