Right now, there’s only a banner on CNN that reads: US Supreme Court rules local governments may seize homes and businesses for private economic development. Holy shit.
Link is up now.
Wow. That’s really awful. I find this puzzling:
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
I’m sure that’s true, but that’s not really the issue, is it? The issue is whether or not they have the right to take the land to begin with, whether it will be beneficial or not. In the past eminent domain pertains to very specific usages. Here, the USSC seems to have ruled that land may be taken as long as the use could conceivably have some impact on the community, at the local government’s discretion. I mean, that could describe ANY development project. Scary.
To be honest, I’ve never been a big fan of eminent domain, either. You can make a good argument for its necessity, but it’s still a bit too totalitarian for my tastes.
AND notice which judges ruled in favor of land siezures and which judges dissented!:
The dissenters:
“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,” O’Connor wrote. “The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."
Of course all the liberal (ie. socialist) judges didn’t have a problem at all with this. Hey, land seizures are the communist way, no? TRUE, this open s the door for corporations to seize land but in the future it also opens the door for the government to seize land for almost ANY reason it deems. This gives governments far, far more control, more sources of TAX revenue, and THATS why you see the socialist judges salivating and why the conservatives dissented- the socialists on the court are the REAL totalitarians- just as they have always been. Actually Justice Stevens, one of the disgusting people (along with Ruth “badgirl” Ginsburg) that believes they should take into account the laws of other nations when making decisions based on our constitution, wrote for the court; basically big brother (or I guess I should say Big SISTER) knows best.
Truly disgusting. Its a famous statement but The Stench from the Bench is making me Clench!
Its becoming more and more the Ruth Bater Ginsburg court- she corrupts the very air that court breaths making it more and more radical every day. Thats all I can say about this. Dispecable and yes its completely totalitarian because of what it signifies and it give us a glimpse of what the court is willing to do if enough socialists have their way. Just one step closer to the edge… These leftists on the court are NOT Liberals- they are far left socialists. There is a very big difference between a classical liberal and a modern socialist. Think of JFK as a true example of a REAL liberal. HAH! Or perhaps even GW Bush (the way he is acting these days- like a drunk liberal)!
At the risk of sounding really fanatic, it’s these type of decisions that make me so sensitized to things like telling bar owners they aren’t allowed to let people smoke in their bars. More and more we seem to be giving the government the right to do whatever the hell they want if they can justify it as “for the common good.” I find it ironic that some people who are so fervently against things like the “Patriot” act (and I’m not just talking about people here) are so gung ho on believing the government should be allowed to do whatever it feels is best for our general well being across the board.
I suppose I am turning into a full fledged libertarian.
Yeah… this is disturbing.
In Canada and many Commonwealth nations, there’s a long and respected tradition of all land belonging to the Crown, with “owners” only leasing in perpetuity - so I’m fairly certain that the government (provincial in this case I believe) has the authority to seize land for pretty much whatever reason it chooses. I’m sure there are abuses but tradition seems to have limited them. [Correct me if I’m wrong]
Americans like to take things to extremes. I’m fairly certain that most city councils will belong to developers now.
Welcome to “the only time I disagree with that side of the Supreme Court.” Idiots.
No, actually you are more along the lines of what our founding fathers believed in. This kind of “Big Sister” garbage is clearly anti-american and time and time and time AGAIN you will notice the leftists at the forefront of such things! Shoving things down our throats we neither want- nor need- because its “for our own good.” Really its all about expanding the powers of the government into as many facets of our lives as possible in order to better control us. Pure socialism, which is by its very nature corrupt to the core due to so much power being weilded by a government. At least that would be an truly American take on the situation. Alas, though, we have been corrupted by leftist, mentally deranged idiots from the 60s. Are the baby boomers the generation that will eventually be responsible for America’s downfall(in so many ways)? Well, they seem to go out of their way, day after day to make things seem more and more acceptable that would have been abominable 40 years ago…
Blaming it on liberals is a bit much - good luck finding an actual self-identiifed liberal on the street who thinks this was a good idea. This is one of those things that Dean talks about on out-of-touch washington goofballs.
God Bless America. [size=1]and its corporate masters[/size]
What I do blame it on is the revisionist view of the Supreme Court role that the liberal judges on the SC seem to take. This seems extremely unconstitutional to me, but the liberal view of the court’s role allows for these types of rulings. Frankly, even after reading the ruling and opinions I don’t understand how they could rule this way: if a government entity wants your house or property because they want the money they can get from it, they now have the right to take it from you. This is so against the private property foundation of our entire system that it makes me shudder. And it is so much in line with the “we’re the government: we’re your boss and you get what we decide you get” philosophy that I keep rebelling against. (And by the way: that government monster approach has plenty of advocates on both sides of the aisle.)
The constitution is pretty vague on the question of eminent domain. It doesn’t define public good, and the court majority clearly had no taste for prescribing a test for this very broad concept. To quote the President, “It’s hard work.”
As a homeowner, I hate the decision, but given the country’s general acceptance of razing slums for urban development and reinvigorating downtown areas - often through the threat of eminent domain - I can see why the decision was so close.
Troy
Of course everyone can see the problem here: Trump decides he wants to tear down a neighborhood and put up a hotel. He greases the mayor’s palm, the homeowners get thrown out with a token settlement and Trump starts building.
This is massive abuse waiting to happen.
Gideongamer’s lunatic rantings notwithstanding, as I noted in the other thread I actually agree with the conservative justices on this one. Broadly defined or not, it seems to me the intent of eminent domain isn’t about generating tax revenue from commercial projects but putting up government structures or building roads.
Based on the overall reaction already - from everybody in the universe - to this ruling I think we can brace ourselves for a quick rush to some very bipartisan legislation in Congress for a change. Nobody wants to have to go home and defend this decision.
So how soon before the housing bubble totally collapses?
4:17 pm today, Eastern standard time. Luckily, I cashed out a couple of months ago.
4:17 pm today, Eastern standard time. Luckily, I cashed out a couple of months ago.[/quote]
So you’ve been living in your car for the last few months?
No, my paid-for McMansion. I sold a couple of duplexes and single family homes, paid off the mortgages and pocketed $3. :lol:
Can’t this be effectively combatted by requiring the payment of a “fair” settlement, where it can at least be argued that “fair” ought to represent some major portion of the perceived eventual value (backed out for present value of future worth), though?
I mean, I wouldn’t want to have to do the lawsuit, so I’m not excusing this, but did they really rule that they don’t have to compensate folks for their property at all? If so, how the fuck does that work? If not, who decides what “fair” compensation is?
It will only affect the poor and uneducated, so i guess ‘fair compensation’ is the absolute bare minimum the developer needs to spend. Enough to relocate them to some trailer park out of town and out of sight I guess.
edit: Apparently in the UK we’ve been able to do this all along. Arsenals new stadium saw some evictions and compensation that no where near covered the losses.
What I do blame it on is the revisionist view of the Supreme Court role that the liberal judges on the SC seem to take. This seems extremely unconstitutional to me, but the liberal view of the court’s role allows for these types of rulings. Frankly, even after reading the ruling and opinions I don’t understand how they could rule this way: if a government entity wants your house or property because they want the money they can get from it, they now have the right to take it from you. This is so against the private property foundation of our entire system that it makes me shudder. And it is so much in line with the “we’re the government: we’re your boss and you get what we decide you get” philosophy that I keep rebelling against. (And by the way: that government monster approach has plenty of advocates on both sides of the aisle.)[/quote]
The SC ruled this was consistutional because they think it’s within the government’s boundaries of eminent domain. How is this a “liberal court” result? It’s just arguing over the definition of “public use” - note the arguments over “cruel and unusual punishment” have the exact same effect, with Scalia pretty much declaring you can do everything short of drawing & quartering and Souter on the “everything is” line. I wouldn’t say either of them are taking “a liberal view of the court’s role”, just different interpretations based on history & intent.
Note the government still has to properly compensate the people, too, for the value of the property; it royally sucks, but it’s not uncompensated seizure. That process tends to dick the poor, but that’s a separate issue of local political corruption that’s been going on for years and years.
I’m really surprised at Souter, though; normally he’s golden.