Supreme Court?

[Jaded]

LMAO...Here I was worrying about "covert entry" and the violation of civil rights inside the home, and now the Supreme Court decides cities can sieze your home for "private development".

The developers who have been trying to move into our neighborhood have just been handed a BIG fortune and a BIG hammer.

Make sure you let your local government know how you feel about this Supreme Court decision. Think recall elections, protests, and boycotts.

Anyone else feeling jaded yet?

[Spathiphyllum]

Anyone else feeling jaded yet?

About this? Beyond belief! I think we may actually agree on something political. Oh look... a flying pig!

Majority opinion: John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer

Dissenters: Sandra Day O'Connor, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas

Notice anything interesting here? Those crazy, "right-wingers" were anti-government/pro-individual in their opinion... you know, the crazed lunatics who want to take over your life and liberty. And who cited government supremacy trumping the people? Those freedom-loving "left-wingers". Oh the hypocrisy abounds in this particular political slice of life.

PS: A sidenote - it is apparent that politics NEVER intrude on the sanctity of our Constitutional laws and their interpretation.

[the_ancient]

you dont own your property, and havn't for a number of decades.

Why do you think you have to pay a "lease" to the government every mo/6mo/year (depending on your state laws) ???

This just re-affirms that fact

And we all thought China was the last communist nation

[Jaded]

Notice anything interesting here? Those crazy, "right-wingers" were anti-government/pro-individual in their opinion... you know, the crazed lunatics who want to take over your life and liberty. And who cited government supremacy trumping the people? Those freedom-loving "left-wingers". Oh the hypocrisy abounds in this particular political slice of life.

I did notice. I was momentarily confused and astonished. Then I realized the dissenters probably have many interests that will be affected by this decision and likely have a lot more to lose than most of us lol.

"What? I didn't mean MINE!"

[Spathiphyllum]

...I was momentarily confused and astonished...

As was I and totally antithetical to my expectations. The ramifications of this decision are huge. Good thing the media has been covering Aruban tourists 24x7. I have sympathy for the family, but c'mon. Where's the sense of proportion? Actually, I know the answer to the rhetorical. Just thought I'd pose it.

"What? I didn't mean MINE!"

Heh. There was a great satire of this decision from I forgot where, but it went something like this:

Reporter covering decision - We're standing in front of Justice Ginsberg's estate where, we have discovered, her platt will be levelled to accomodate the new, public project "Home for the Homeless Center". Ginsberg will temporarily room in Justice Breyer's flat until she can find another unfortunate soul to evict.

The piece was funnier than I can recall, but you get the gist.

[Ron]

Spathy,

The fact that the right wingers were against the government coming and arbitrarily taking your property and the lefties were for the power of the government to take your land "for the public good" shouldn't surprise anyone. That's exactly how I'd expect them to come out.

This isn't about the government taking your property for a real public need, such as a homeless shelter or a highway, or a landfill, or any government/public use. This is about the government taking away your property and giving it to a mall developer, a private enterprise. The theory is that this taking is beneficial to the community becuase it will provide for jobs.

I am appalled at this decision, absolutely appalled. I haven't read the decision, and I won't for a while -- I had been following the case earlier and truly believed the Supreme Court would act responsibly. There will no longer be anysuch thing as holdouts getting a fair/good price for their properties, the developers will tell them "if you don't sell to me for 75% of pre-development plans prices, I will get the town to invoke eminent domain and you'll get 50%".

So now if you own 100 acres somewhere, and some guy wants to stick a mall there, the ONLY way you can fight'em off is by rallying your neighbors and the rest of the town/city/state to lobby politicians to save your own land. This is so against the grain of our country where even people with cabins on federal lands that were converted over to Parks and Monuments were granted lifetime tenancy. You DON'T take people's land or homes from them.

Another reason to hope for a REAL conservative to be elected next time, and REAL conservative justices to be appointed. Perhaps this issue will be the "Rove Gay Marriage" issue for the next election. I hope so; it will elect every conservative on the ticket.

[Spathiphyllum]

...This is about the government taking away your property and giving it to a mall developer, a private enterprise...

Which is what makes this doubly obscene. O'Conner's dissention is terrific and spot on. Follow M. Malkin's blog entry to get some good links at the universal derision of the decision. Oh, and here's a link to that satire I mentioned earlier.

...There will no longer be any such thing as holdouts getting a fair/good price for their properties, the developers will tell them "if you don't sell to me for 75% of pre-development plans prices, I will get the town to invoke eminent domain and you'll get 50%".

Yep. Deep pockets and the well connected will now be able to remove anyone else on the premise that an assumed future return on property values and derived taxes will occur and be above current values. Psychic Trudy scans her crystal ball at the behest of Richie Rich and declares "Build it and they will come!". Not that the value of the property should make a damn bit of difference anyway. The property owner should trump everyone at almost all times. The only justification I can see is for national defense against international threats, and, even then, the compensation should be just.

...This is so against the grain of our country where even people with cabins on federal lands that were converted over to Parks and Monuments were granted lifetime tenancy. You DON'T take people's land or homes from them.

Agreed.

Another reason to hope for a REAL conservative to be elected next time, and REAL conservative justices to be appointed. Perhaps this issue will be the "Rove Gay Marriage" issue for the next election. I hope so; it will elect every conservative on the ticket.

I don't know what issue will swing the balance but I don't care what it is. We must become more reverent to the Constitution and quit letting it "live" quite so much. This explains why the libs are so concerned about judicial appointments. It seems that when law disagrees with them, they keep trying to set precedent in some shotgun approach hoping for a sympathetic judge or venue. Once the foot is in the door, the Legislatively derived will-of-the-people gets trumped. A bit of a generalization on my part but just the sense I get based on long-term observations. [Let the flames begin.] All's I'm sayin' is that we need "conservatism" of the Constitution and trust that it means what it reads with less reinterpretation.

There will be fallout from this and possibly civil (or not so civil) disobedience. Though State may still intervene (supposedly) to overrule, you can bet that some business will lose at local, and again at State, appeal to Supreme, and then win because of this precedent. Can you say "Ruby Ridge"? It's not exactly the same but it is similar in that homeowners, having felt cheated from a government that will not defend their rights and actually assisting in the perceived theft of property on behalf of the powerful and by proxy, may take extreme measures to halt the "crime". And I wouldn't blame the homeowner.

[lokki]

At least the DOJ admitted that they view the 2nd amendment as an individual right, not a state or federal right.

I have a friend who used to remark that if a law was passed that made all firearms illegal, he would declare open season on liberals. I'm still not sure if he was joking.

As for property, don't forget that anything below a certain depth generally is in the demense of oil and mineral hunters... including in many cases the right to go through your surface property to get to it. "Due compensation" is offered, but you can't sell the oil or minerals.

[Vin DSL]

The way it's panning out, if local government can make more (tax) money compensating someone for their private property, and transferring ownership to another private party, that's what they're going to do.

For instance, let's say they have a church in the middle of a downtown area, which generates zero taxes. They can bulldoze it and replace it with a Church's Chicken, which does generate taxes.

If you don't like it, I suppose you could go to court and fight 'em for the next 10 years...

[Spathiphyllum]

The way it's panning out, if local government can make more (tax) money compensating someone for their private property, and transferring ownership to another private party, that's what they're going to do.

Yep.

If you don't like it, I suppose you could go to court and fight 'em for the next 10 years...

Thing is, who would trust a court system, even a delayed-action one, whose reigning vision and wisdom saw fit to take away one's private property and grant it to another, likely wealthier, private entity? I wouldn't.

Truthfully, I'm not sure what I'd do were I to become a target. I would hope that locals would intervene and petition via civil disobedience, but I have little faith in such an expectation. Cities know this all too well in their divide-and-conquer SOP of land-grabbing. I've voted out (locally) council members who do not respect homeowner's rights; unfortunately, the homeowner has already lost the land and the more respectful councilmember who superceded the "land-grabber" will be replaced with another land-grabber in due course for the sake of increasing the tax-base. It's inevitable and the mobile society in which we live detracts from long-term neighborhood stability and memory.

This concern might explain why I'm an NRA'er. There. I've said it. Who knew?

[Ron]

[...] let's say they have a church in the middle of a downtown area, which generates zero taxes. They can bulldoze it and replace it with a Church's Chicken, which does generate taxes.

If you don't like it, I suppose you could go to court and fight 'em for the next 10 years...

Without substantial financial backing, you'd just be going to court on a wing and a prayer.








that even made ME groan!

[Spathiphyllum]

...you'd just be going to court on a wing and a prayer.

Is that still legal? Or would you have to wait outside, ask for an interpretation of context and, context having allowed such internal oratory, enter only to be befuddled by swearing upon that holy scripture thingy-bopper sullying the sanctified air?

Seriously, would one have a leg to stand on here or would the court just fry me anyway?

[the_ancient]

this battle is best fought at the state house

urge if of your state reps to follow texas's lead

http://www.ahrc.com/new/index.php/sr...wMedia/id/2328