This is far more than one more freedom. This is foundational. This says that the government can confiscate your property for just about any damned reason they want, by merely saying they think things would be better if your land was used for their needs. I’m still in shock that even these justices could rule in such a boneheaded way. If they were the conservative judges there would be a huge outcry as to how they were obviously corrupt and should somehow be removed.
Maybe it’s time for a grass roots Constitutional Ammendment package like the Bill of Rights. Start circulating it on the net, get people like Jon Stewart to back it, and remind the feds who’s really sovereign.
This is far more than one more freedom. This is foundational. This says that the government can confiscate your property for just about any damned reason they want, by merely saying they think things would be better if your land was used for their needs. I’m still in shock that even these justices could rule in such a boneheaded way. If they were the conservative judges there would be a huge outcry as to how they were obviously corrupt and should somehow be removed.[/quote]I agree, im just trying to be a bit more moderate these days.
Oh, I agree. My point isn’t that it’s not going to suck. My point is that in 15 years when the bench has changed the ruling can be effectively re-visited by taking the discussion of what/how the property should be evaluated to the SC as well. After all, if developers were forced to pay at/near the upgraded estimated value, it would be exponentially less enticing to want to do this.
This is far more than one more freedom. This is foundational. This says that the government can confiscate your property for just about any damned reason they want, by merely saying they think things would be better if your land was used for their needs. I’m still in shock that even these justices could rule in such a boneheaded way. If they were the conservative judges there would be a huge outcry as to how they were obviously corrupt and should somehow be removed.[/quote]
This is so true. It would be the lead story for a full week on the network news how the evil Republicans are hurting the poor YET AGAIN.
<Ben>Maybe it’s because THE POOR DON’T OWN PROPERTY!</Ben>
This is so true. It would be the lead story for a full week on the network news how the evil Republicans are hurting the poor YET AGAIN.[/quote]
Translation: Waaah! Poor conservatives are victims even in my made up fantasy world.
<Ben>Maybe it’s because THE POOR DON’T OWN PROPERTY!</Ben>[/quote]
Actually the poor are the most likely targets - lower income people owning homes, for example, have been documented targets of this crap. They don’t have the resources (or connections) to effectively fight back.
It’s funny how much ire and antagonism there is in a thread where, as far as I can tell, everyone is in complete agreement re: the thread topic.
Gotta love P&R.
LOL! We’re so typical of American politics these days.
Is it time to remind everyone that the “flypaper” theory of heated political discussion was the point of creating the P&R forum in the first place?
This is why I think the liberal/conservative distinction is less informative than the libertarian/authoritarian distinction. Both the (supposedly) right-wing hatred of “big government” and the (supposedly) left-wing hatred of “government owned by business” are the same libertarian cry. The liberal/conservative distinction is used by the parties in power to divide the libertarians, so that people like McCulloch and I believe we’re on opposite sides of the fence, when we actually aren’t.
Heh, can’t argue with that.
From an interview with the guy that argued Kelo:
Reason: Can you give some examples of other eminent domain abuses among the 10,000 cases you guys have cited?
SB: I’ll give you one primary example that’s brewing in Long Branch, New Jersey right now, where a group of people want to hang on to their working-class beach homes. They’ve worked very hard to get their modest bungalows along the shore. These houses were purchased just by working class folks in Newark and other places, and now many of the elderly residents live there full-time; these are their dream homes. And the City of Long Branch is just proposing taking these people’s homes and transferring them to wealthier home-owners. They want to tear them down and build million-dollar condominiums for people right along the shore in northern New Jersey. And so it’s a classic example of taking the property of poorer folks and giving it to wealthier folks, and using it for the same purpose. It’s just a transfer of wealth between home owners. It’s a classic example of eminent domain abuse and one that I think will be litigated in the very near future.
At the investment end of things it’s pure evil to take property this way. Fact is that some people searched out a piece of property that would be in high demand and then the government says all future investment gains belong to this wealthier person.
I don’t see how it’s any different between me starting a business and then the government taking it because someone else could run it better.
It’s time to start throwing some tea in the harbor.
I dunno if we need to get to freaked out by this. If -we- can all agree this ill-defined version of “public use” is a bad idea my guess is that anyone with a brain in Congress (not that many but there are a few) is figuring out that coming up with a better defined concept for “public use” is a winner. Everyone can agree. Something gets done.
One thing that’s funny, besides folks like me agreeing with the conservative dissenters in this judgement, is seeing conservative political types getting upset. After all, all the liberal justices were doing was evidently saying that the court had no business defining “public use” which should, instead, be defined by states or localities. In otherwords, they were rejecting the idea of legislating from the bench. How’s that for some double dipped irony here?
Right, but it’s still a lousy idea.
and its already starting…
That is so awesome! Regime change writ small.