Supreme Court rules homes can be seized for private use

Parent Cafe
1

<p>I cannot believe the liberal court ruled this way. I cannot believe this is happening! What on earth were they thinking??? </p>

<p>WASHINGTON (AP) – – The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses – even against their will – for private economic development. </p>

<p>It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights. </p>

<p>The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas. </p>

<p>As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue. </p>

<p>Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said. </p>

<p>“The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including – but by no means limited to – new jobs and increased tax revenue,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. </p>

<p>He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. </p>

<p>At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for “public use.” </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

2

<p>All I can say it ARGGGHHHH!!! Unbelievable…I guess public use is a new building for Pfizer.</p>

3

<p>I am enormously disappointed in this. Between this ruling and the medical marijuana one, it seems obvious that it’s ridiculous to call this bunch, “liberals”.</p>

<p>This ruling is all about class war. As Sandra Day O’Connor said: “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,” </p>

<p>This is, to me, being erroneously presented as government vs individual rights, It is, but only insofar as it is government ceding its power to private, corporate ownership, a trend which both parties are embracing.</p>

4

<p>I agree with garland on this, although I would not have been able to say it as well as that: “government ceding its power to private, corporate ownership.” These kinds of decisions worry me a lot…</p>

5

<p>Well, as I’ve often said, Scalia is almost always correct. This is what you get when you have a bunch of activist judges who think they should have the power of a super-legislature. They think they’re “the Guardians” a la Plato’s Republic. Smarter and morally superior to all the underlings. Bush, God bless him, is working to change this.</p>

6

<p>Actually, driver, when I heard this ruling, I thought it was the CONSERVATIVE BENCH who ruled this ludicrous idea.</p>

7

<p>The conservatives, aka classical liberals, would never have ruled for such an affront to life, liberty, and property. Pat Leahy and his ilk would love to pack the court with more judges that would concur with this decision.</p>

8

<p>

I don’t agree. Unfortunately the gang of five liberals on the court are usually consistently activist and wrong. These five are socialists. They believe in government. What does government need – money. Although I suspect they do not like ruling in favor of developers, they likely see that as a necessary evil in order to make sure government is well funded for all of the fantastic things they believe government does.</p>

9

<p>In true socialism, the government exists for the people (I’m not talking about Communism). It does not exist to give profits to private corporations. That’s the Republicans’ job.</p>

<p>What we call liberals in the US would not be considered so in the rest of the Western world. Handing over private property to developers is neither classically liberal nor socialist. Which is why I’ve always maintained that Clinton, to give one example, was no liberal (with his enthusiastic support for the WTO,etc.) Or if we insist on calling this type of attitude liberal, I’ll take “progressive.” </p>

<p>No one I know on the lefter side of things is any thing but outraged by this ruling, whatever you want to label them.</p>

10

<p>“In true socialism, the government exists for the people (I’m not talking about Communism). It does not exist to give profits to private corporations. That’s the Republicans’ job.”</p>

<p>It’s just the usual “socialism of the rich”, who organize to defend and extend their class interests against the rest of the population, who’ve learned (in our public schools, molded by John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie) to shut up and take it. </p>

<p>The government has taken private property, and public space, and public air and water upon which we as private citizens depend, and public airwaves, etc., and auctioned them off to benefit the socialism of the rich for decades, so what else is new? This is just a minor extension of Demo-Republican thinking, bought and paid for by those who buy and pay for it. So what else is new?</p>

<p>Let’s remember this is classic wealth redistribution, and who lost and who gained.</p>

11

<p>See, this is why I’m so disillusioned with American politics. It’s just another instance of the Republicrats obeying their corporate masters. I was really surprised to see that all the supposed “liberals” voted to allow this travesty (in reality, I don’t think any of them could really be termed “liberal”–Ginsburg, maybe?) Seriously, I would have expected this one to go the other way, with Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Kennedy siding with the corporations. They kind of threw us a curve on this one, I guess.</p>

12

<p>Many states and communities have laws which prevent just this from happening. The community needs to vote off these representatives that gave the private corp the ability to do this. This didn’t just happen yesterday. This battle has been going on for years! If the community voted to retain these reps, then the community wants this to occur, and either needs the jobs, or thinks its taxes will not go up with the fresh inflow of tax revenues from the business. That doesn’t mean I like this outcome. I think it stinks! Perhaps the court took into account that this could have been changed in the elections over the last few years??? (Not necessarily stated in the opinion, but could have been on their minds) I know from now on, I will question anyone running for local office about their stance on this issue, and it will be a determining factor on my vote. Check your local statutes and ordinances to see if your area prohibits this. If it doesn’t, then become active and get the laws to prohibit this passed. The decision doesn’t say a community has to do this, just that it has the power to do so, if it chooses to excercise it. So make sure your community does not choose to exercise this right.</p>

13

<p>Many states and communities have laws which prevent just this from happening. The community needs to vote off these representatives that gave the private corp the ability to do this. This didn’t just happen yesterday. This battle has been going on for years! If the community voted to retain these reps, then the community wants this to occur, and either needs the jobs, or thinks its taxes will not go up with the fresh inflow of tax revenues from the business. That doesn’t mean I like this outcome. I think it stinks! Perhaps the court took into account that this could have been changed in the elections over the last few years??? (Not necessarily stated in the opinion, but could have been on their minds) I know from now on, I will question anyone running for local office about their stance on this issue, and it will be a determining factor on my vote. Check your local statutes and ordinances to see if your area prohibits this. If it doesn’t, then become active and get the laws to prohibit this passed. The decision doesn’t say a community has to do this, just that it has the power to do so, if it chooses to excercise it. So make sure your community does not choose to exercise this right.</p>

14

<p>Gee, I’m surprised that you all are surprised. Cities have been using this for years to build sports arenas.</p>

15

<p>True, BAndit. And it stinks every time. But one could hope it might eventually be shot down by the Supreme Court; now we can’t.</p>

16

<p>Guys, the LIBERAL judges ruled for this. Scalia, Thomas, O’Connor (typical swing vote), and Rehnquist dissented (quite strongly, I might add).</p>

<p>Yes, the “liberals” believe that private property can be seized and given to Big Business.</p>

17

<p>This essentially eviscerates the Takings Clause. We now have very little protection against government seizure.</p>

18

<p>Overpopulation is going to kill us all one day. I wonder where we will allow cattle and other animals used for meat and other food resources to graze, or where the government has planned on planting veggies and fruits when there is no space left in which to do those things.</p>

19

<p>Clarence Thomas hit the nail on the head in his dissent, noting that the previous takings clause allowed taking for public use, but that this decision effectively changes that to allow taking of private property for a public purpose. </p>

<p>The only good thing about this is that it will force the dems to change their tune on the court. There couldn’t have been a better advertisement for being republican than this. It will also jerk the rug from under the filibuster and no vote tactics in the House and Senate.</p>

<p>By the way, would everybody look at who voted for what, who wrote what, and put this decision where it belongs…back in the tradition of the Franklin Roosevelt court? The Republiphobia foaming at the mouth becomes even more tiresome when it is factually wrong.</p>

20

<p>bluealien it is killing us now we just don’t want to think about it.

<a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4391835.stm[/url]”>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4391835.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;