Recent Supreme Court Ruling

[TomCollins]

Take my house, please

Am I the only one really bothered by this ruling?

[jackdaniels]

I just read this article and I must say, this is a sad day for the US of A.

The reason for this ruling? "Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said." What happened to: "This is MY PROPERTY and I know best what I want done with it"??? What does the ownership of private property have anything to do with the "benefit of the community"??? Now that eminent domain has been expanded to include the "vision" of local government (coupled with the interests of connected businesses), we are likely to see more of this sort of thing.

Again, a sad day for the US of A.

[Felix_Nietsche]

This is what happens when liberals appoint activist judges. They ignore the constitution, consult foreign law which agrees with their pre-conceived oppinions, and then they make their unconstitutional rulings.

Some of their worst decisions are:
McCain-Feingold = Full frontal assault on political speech 30/60 days before an election.
Medical Marijuana = The Death of the 10th amendment and an illegal application of the interstate commerce clause.

Did you notice is was EVILLLLLLL conservative judges who largely opposed these rulings? I doubt Marijuana activists are going to lobby for another 'Clarence Thomas' to be appointed to the supreme court.

[kurto]

You should drop your partisan blinders and act like a normal human being once in awhile.

I would go show how when Bush pushed to have the stadium built in Texas, they used the courts to force people out of their property for the sake of his business.

But what would the point be? Nothing gets past your blinders.

[imported_The Vibesman]

As a card-carrying liberal and Mass Democrat, I have to agree w/ Felix. This ruling (and McCain Feingold, and the Medical Marihuana ruling) are activist, unconstitutional rulings. But the worst thing about this is that it has been going on for at least ten years. I report on construction projects, and I can tell you this happens ALL THE TIME, the city will decide that it is in their best interest to have a retail mall, or a wal-mart in many cases, and take peoples homes by eminent domain to give to the private developer. Often this involves some sort of payment to the city by the developer, as if it wasn't shady enough. Retail developers don't like to talk about this way of getting property as they know it is bad PR, but it is more and more common w/ every large development. This is a pet peeve of mine, I think it is disgusting.

[James Boston]

I started to post this link and saw you beat me to it. This is sickening. Only in extreme cases do I support what's happening here. (e.g. a multi-million dollar highway project halted by someone who is just being stubborn) This, though, is totally repulsive. These people should be able to do whatever they want with their property. Ironically, I usually side with public officials when private residents start bitching about a city project that they don't want near their neighborhood, or when they complain about zoning and whatnot. I say if you on the land, do what you please.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I would go show how when Bush pushed to have the stadium built in Texas, they used the courts to force people out of their property for the sake of his business.
************************************************** *****
I am against this supreme court ruling. It is 100% unconstitutional.
As for Bush, you are referring to the new Texas Ranger baseball stadium. An intitiative was put on the ballot and the voters of Arlington voted to increase the city's sales tax to pay for the stadium. If you have evidence that Bush43 used courts to force people to sell their property against their will to build this stadium then please provide the links. Living in Texas, I read the local papers and I can recall no stories of people going to court being forced to sell they property against their will.
I SUSPECT you have no links showing this and are letting your emotional dislike for Bush rule your mind.

On a side note, I'm against public financing for these stadiums. Ticket prices go up and so do the players salaries. It is a gimic to allow wealthy owners to have more money to buy high price players. Other ball teams, that want to stay competitive, then apeal to their voters for their own stadium. It is analogous to a military arms race.

On another side note, Bush has done MULTIPLE things I disagree with (Terry Sciavo, internet gambling, medical marijuana, drug bill, farm bill, 'education' bill, not vetoing McCain-Feingold, etc...)

[TomCollins]

It's one thing to confiscate property to build a new highway/city hall/actual government use.

It's quite another to give it to Wal-mart, Jerry Jones, etc...

[poker-penguin]

How long is it before somebody's family house in a scenic area is confiscated for a rich person holiday home?

Seriously, if local government (who I equate with Boss Hogg) are allowed to abuse their powers for "economic development" then it's only a matter of time.

I mean letting Bill Gates bulldoze some ridiculously stubborn schmuck's home in Colorado and build a mansion would do more for the economy than a mall.

[Utah]

I absolutely hate the result of this ruling and the impending abuse that will follow. However, I have less trouble with the logic.

It sounds to be like they are saying, "we are not in the business of deteriming what is truly a public interest. We will leave that to the states to determine".

If you dont like how your state is run then vote them out.