by 95stormfront 25 Replies latest jw friends
Another bad decision from the worthless Supreme Court. At one time, this Court served a purpose. Now they're just yes men/women for King George.
Better check your facts and see which judges where totally in favor of this ruling, which were in the middle and which were against it. BTW, I haven't seen Kerry, Clinton or Kenndy voice any kind of protest in the media.
But this goes beyond right vs. left, every home owner and any worried that believes in the fundamental right of private property should be outraged.
I agree. I just wish I saw one senator or congressman on the news with the balls to saw "This ruling is bullshit!"
"Better check your facts and see which judges where totally in favor of this ruling, which were in the middle and which were against it. BTW, I haven't seen Kerry, Clinton or Kenndy voice any kind of protest in the media."
Kerry, Clinton, and Kennedy have no connection to the current extremely right wing Supreme Court. Their silence might be some unheard of thing called deference to the judiciary.
extremely right wing Supreme Court.
The liberal Justices are the ones who voted for this ridiculous abuse of power. Sandra Day O'Connor had it right when she wrote that this will further enable the haves to abuse the have-nots. What is really terrifying is that there is no remedy for the landowner, as the municipality will decide the reach of the proposed "domain" *and* decide it's "fair market value" and there will be no recourse for the landowner, as the jurisdiction of the municipality is as high as it goes. Once that is decided, then the municipality will exercise its' eminent domain powers and just TAKE the land under these enhanced powers granted it by SuCo. There also appears to be no provisions in the new decision to allow for independant appraisal, relocation costs to be reimbursed, loss of business, training for business owners who do not have alternate incomes to fall back on, etc.
I'm sure there will be a severe backlash in the next 5-10 years as landowners decide that they're just not going to lay down and give up their homesteads (heritage family homes, lands, lakes, etc.) for the sake of colonization by developers of subdivisions, strip malls, and corporate chain stores. I'm positive we'll be seeing not a few of these landowners chained to trees, with bulldozers just waiting and ready. Reminds me of the Randy Weaver ordeal. The Feds will declare that it's "the law" and then just come in and raid the place for the sake of proving their power, and then the bulldozers will lay bare the land that holds the memories and care of its inhabitants and predecessors.
This is only a supposition, but maybe it makes sense. Sometimes, the anticipated colonization of a locale far exceeds the actual colonization. There are more than a few places in some cities that a popular developer, with all the right connections, came in and said "I am going to build a SuperCenter. There will be a coffee shop on the first ground floor, underground parking, condos atop the first ground floor, pool on the top, and that will bring 8,000 jobs to the city." However, what he fails to recognize is that if the City is not prepped for the colonization: public transportation needs, parking needs, income availability, population's employability, etc., it just won't work. There are several buildings in the city near me that have knocked out some old, really historic buildings, because they wanted to redo a block or two. They have grandiose plans, but went bankrupt halfway through construction, so now, instead of these beautiful old buildings that were somewhat small, there is just a big metal structure standing for two years now waiting for someone to buy it! All the people that did business there for years were bought out, and now instead of family supporting businesses, there is a worthless structure that no one wants to buy because it's halfway into construction, it's too expensive, and no one can afford to tear it down. Lovely...
This is one of the most stupid decisions that the Supreme Court has ever made, next to the Dredd decision about slavery. Unfortunately, we will have to wait to see the backlash. Their decision is just one more notch in the erosion of our civil rights, and only inches us closer to a totally socialistic society. Thank heaven, I think more Americans, more than ever, lately, are waking up to the growing awareness that our Society is quickly becoming one of Big Brother controlling our every move. Unfortunately, I just don't know if it isn't too late to do something about it. What that would involve, I don't know...
CG
TAKING HOMES FOR PRIVATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OK'D
By Linda Greenhouse
New York Times
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday, in one of its most closely watched property-rights cases in years, that fostering economic development is an appropriate use of the government's power of eminent domain.
The 5-4 decision cleared the way for the city of New London, Conn., to proceed with a large-scale plan to replace a faded residential neighborhood with office space for research and development, a conference hotel, new residences and a pedestrian ``river walk'' along the Thames River.
The project, to be leased and built by private developers, is intended to derive maximum benefit for the city from a $350 million research center built nearby by the Pfizer pharmaceutical company.
New London, deemed a ``distressed municipality'' by the state 15 years ago, has a high unemployment rate and fewer residents today than it had in 1920.
The owners of 15 homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, including one woman who was born in her house 87 years ago and has lived there since, had resisted the plan and refused the city's offer of compensation.
Creating jobs, revenue
After the city condemned the properties in November 2000, the homeowners went to state court to argue that the taking would be unconstitutional. The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the use of eminent domain in a ruling last year.
In affirming that decision, the majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens resolved a question that had surprisingly gone unanswered for all the myriad times that governments have used their power under the Fifth Amendment to ``take'' private property for ``public use.'' The question was the definition of ``public use.''
Stevens wrote that New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment because the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue. Stevens noted that earlier Supreme Court decisions interpreting the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment had allowed the use of eminent domain to redevelop a blighted neighborhood in Washington, D.C., to redistribute land ownership in Hawaii and to assist a gold-mining company, in a decision by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1906.
``Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government,'' Stevens said, adding, ``Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose.''
He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing -- David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.
`Sad decision'
In San Jose, Redevelopment Agency Director Harry Mavrogenes said agency attorneys would review the decision, but he believes ``it validates the ability of cities to use the power of eminent domain for development purposes, which is something that many agencies and cities have been doing around the country. It won't dramatically change the way we do business. We've used eminent domain carefully and will continue to use it as necessary but in a careful way.''
However, state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, said in a statement Thursday that the decision ``nullifies the Constitution's public use clause and opens an era when the rich and powerful may use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain.''
He said he will work to introduce an amendment to the California Constitution that would ``require that the government must either own the property it seizes through eminent domain or guarantee the public the legal right to use the property. In addition, it will require that such property must be restored to the original owner or his rightful successor if the government ceased to use it for the purpose of the eminent domain action.''
``I think it's a sad decision for this country,'' said Loraine Wallace Rowe, one of the founders of the Coalition for Redevelopment Reform in San Jose, which formed after owners of 40 properties in the downtown area received notices in 2000 that their properties could be seized for redevelopment projects. None of the properties were taken, however.
``Basically, what they're saying is that a single-family home is not worth as much as what a developer might want to put in. I totally believe that taking private property for private use is wrong.''
Dissenting opinion
The homeowners in New London, represented by a public-interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, argued that taking property to enable private economic development, even development that would provide a public benefit by enhancing the tax base, could never be a ``public use.''
In their view, the only transfers of property that qualified were those that gave actual ownership or use to the public, such as a highway or a public utility.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor objected that ``the words `for public use' do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power.''
O'Connor said, ``Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.''
O'Connor's dissenting opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
"The liberal Justices are the ones who voted for this ridiculous abuse of power."
There are no liberals on the Court; they are all either slightly right of the middle or to the far right.
There are no liberals on the Court; they are all either slightly right of the middle or to the far right.
Ok now, quit it...your killing me !!!!!!!
It is indeed a sad commentary on how right wing this country has become when folks label any of our current Supreme Court justices as "liberals." Jula, since you find this to be such a joke, name a liberal justice sitting on the Court.
There are no liberals on the Court; they are all either slightly right of the middle or to the far right.
Unfortunately for you, the justices that voted for eminent domain for cities are the ones that have mostly been liberal voters, as compared to the other ones.
CG
