Poetic Justice for Supreme Court Justice?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually, that's EXACTLY what the ruling is saying because it's up to the local authorities to determine what is "for the benefit of the public."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why this ruling is such bulls---.

Do we let local officials define "free speech" or "due process" or "double jeapordy" NO!

We are talking about a constitutional right here, which states must respect. They don't have the right to say, 'hey in our state "due process" means lynching niggers'. They don't have the right to say "in our state habeous corpus means we send you to a gulag". They can't do it because they are CONSTRAINED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

Also, the justices did not defer to the states on the definition of public they UPHELD the definition of "public use" as "we want more taxes". This definition can at best be charitably described as specious.

Try this. Can you think of any way for a state to LOSE an eminent domain claim now?

The ruling stinks.

Also: http://www.theagitator.com/archives/022207.php#022207




natedogg

[ACPlayer]

I cannot tell exactly who will own the property. The city raised a bunch of money via the sale of a Bond to purchase these properties and to finance the development of the project. I expect that the rents from the property will be used to pay the bond holders their interest and principle over time (but cannot tell for sure from the Supreme Court opinions).

The area of the project will be for public use (in that the public will be shopping, working, and otherwise enjoying the waterfront area). Whether that qualifies as constitutional public use --- according the 5 justices it does and according to 4 it does not.

It is however very clear that this is not a case of a private party approaching the govt official and saying we want to acquire this property that the owner does not wish to sell can you use Eminent Domain to take the property and give it to me. THis is clearly part of a well thought out plan.

[lehighguy]

They are taking private property from one person and giving it to another. Just because they don't specifically have anyone in mind at the time doesn't make it any better. I'm really gonna like it when someone from the town comes to my house and says:
"We are revitalizing downtown. We don't yet know exactly what we are putting where your house used to be, but I'm sure it will be better then your little hovel. Now scurry off."

[ACPlayer]

If it is part of a "carefully considered" development plan -- then you would have to scurry off.

The constitution says so according to the best legal minds in the country.

[MMMMMM]

The new owners of the property will be private businesses.

The majority of justices in the SCOTUS decision redefined the term "public use."


Property rites
Thomas Sowell

"You may own your own home and expect to live there the rest of your life. But keep your bags packed, because the Supreme Court of the United States has decreed that local politicians can take your property away and turn it over to someone else, just by using the magic words "public purpose."

We're not talking about the government taking your home in order to build a reservoir or a highway for the benefit of the public. The Constitution always allowed the government to take private property for "public use," provided the property owner was paid "just compensation."

What the latest Supreme Court decision does with verbal sleight-of-hand is change the Constitution's requirement of "public use" to a more expansive power to confiscate private property for whatever is called "public purpose" -- including turning that property over to some other private party.

In this case -- Kelo v. New London -- the private parties to whom the government would turn over confiscated properties include a hotel, restaurants, shops, and a pharmaceutical company.

These are not public uses, as the Constitution requires, but are said to serve "public purposes," as courts have expanded the concept beyond the language of the 5th Amendment -- reflecting those "evolving" circumstances so dear to judges who rewrite the Constitution to suit their own tastes.

No sane person has ever denied that circumstances change or that laws need to change to meet new circumstances. But that is wholly different from saying that judges are the ones to decide which laws need changing and in what way at what time.

What are legislatures for except to legislate? What is the separation of powers for except to keep legislative, executive and judicial powers separate?

When the 5 to 4 Supreme Court majority "rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public" because of the "evolving needs of society," it violated the Constitutional separation of powers on which the American system of government is based.

When the Supreme Court majority referred to its "deference to legislative judgments" about the taking of property, it was as disingenuous as it was inconsistent. If Constitutional rights of individuals are to be waved aside because of "deference" to another branch of government, then the citizens may as well not have Constitutional rights.

What are these rights supposed to protect the citizens from, if not the government?

This very Court, just days before, showed no such deference to a state's law permitting the execution of murderers who were not yet 18. Such selective "deference" amounts to judicial policy-making rather than the carrying out of the law.

Surely the Justices must know that politicians whose whole careers have been built on their ability to spin words can always come up with some words that will claim that there is what they can call a "public purpose" in what they are doing.

How many private homeowners can afford to litigate such claims all the way up and down the judicial food chain? Apartment dwellers who are thrown out on the street by the bulldozers are even less able to defend themselves with litigation.

The best that can be said for the Supreme Court majority's opinion is that it follows -- and extends -- certain judicial precedents. But, as Justice Clarence Thomas said in dissent, these "misguided lines of precedent" need to be reconsidered, so as to "return to the original meaning of the Public Use Clause" in the Constitution.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dissent points out that the five Justices in the majority -- Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens, and Kennedy -- "wash out any distinction between private and public use of property." As a result, she adds: "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

In other words, politicians can replace your home with whatever they expect will pay more taxes than you do -- and call their money grab a "public purpose."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/t...20050627.shtml

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
It is however very clear that this is not a case of a private party approaching the govt official and saying we want to acquire this property that the owner does not wish to sell can you use Eminent Domain to take the property and give it to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't really know who initiated this deal.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot tell exactly who will own the property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly why I said it doesn't matter if it's for public or private development. What starts out as a road project can turn into a wal-mart after they've bulldozed your house.

[ QUOTE ]
It is however very clear that this is not a case of a private party approaching the govt official and saying we want to acquire this property that the owner does not wish to sell can you use Eminent Domain to take the property and give it to me. THis is clearly part of a well thought out plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) It's not clear AT ALL that this is "not a case of a private party approaching the govt official and saying we want to acquire this property."

2) Why does a "well-thought-out plan" make it OK to steal my property?

3) Isn't it more likely that a "well-thought-out plan" originated in the private sector?

4) What if starbucks comes up with a "well-thought-out plan" to turn your house into coffee bar? Is that OK? Hey, it's well thought out, everyone else in your neighborhood wants a starbucks there, you can't object to that, the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, you can't argue with that!

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
If it is part of a "carefully considered" development plan -- then you would have to scurry off.

The constitution says so according to the best legal minds in the country.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Supreme Court is not infalliable. The Constitution is not an axiom. Just because the government "says so" doesn't mean it's right.

[tylerdurden]

Give an example of a private development that is NOT "carefully considered." THe private sector doesn't just dump money into a project without thinking about it. Sure there have been development flops, but they weren't just undertaken willy-nilly. Real people are risking real capital. It's not like a government development project where a bunch of bureaucrats are risking someone else's money.

Bascally, your criteria of giving free reign to "carefull considered" or "well thought out" plans gives the PRIVATE setor the greenlight to take whatever they want.

[ACPlayer]

Well, I will take the interpretation of the constitution by Supreme Court lawyer than from a hack like Sowell.

There are many ambiguities in the constitution and the definition of public use is one. I believe these ambiguities are generally a good thing. Regardless of which side of the actual decision I come down on.

This particular decision, to me, appears to meet the test. Without even getting into whether the SC should be addressing the issue in the first place.

In other words, politicians can replace your home with whatever they expect will pay more taxes than you do -- and call their money grab a "public purpose."

Politicians can do all sorts of things to you that are constritutional that you may not like. Take the Patriot Act for example.

Kick the bums out.