NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050624/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property

"Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue. "

"In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans."

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined O'Connor's dissenting opinion.

"Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue."

"He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy."

Welcome to 6 fucking hours ago, not only is there already a thread like this, it includes the partisan hackery!

AND is STILL on the FRONT page

This will not help anything B0xy. This is not a matter of “right” and “left”. This is a matter of stopping corrupt politicians and corporate moguls from taking over small town America. The left and right must unite in order to end this nonsense.

COuld you please change your title? Unless Anthony Kennedy became a liberal when I wasn't looking. :p

This will not help anything B0xy. This is not a matter of “right” and “left”. This is a matter of stopping corrupt politicians and corporate moguls from taking over small town America. The left and right must unite in order to end this nonsense.

Hear Hear!

This has nothing to do with politics. Scumbags are scumbags, there is no left or right about it.
And saying Liberal and Supreme Court justices in the same sentence is an oxymoron btw. As is saying a Liberal anyone wants to give more to crappy rich developers. No true liberal supports that.

I can't believe what this country has lowered itself to :headbang:

Hear Hear!

This has nothing to do with politics. Scumbags are scumbags, there is no left or right about it.
And saying Liberal and Supreme Court justices in the same sentence is an oxymoron btw. As is saying a Liberal anyone wants to give more to crappy rich developers. No true liberal supports that.
Yep--the "liberal" justices on the Supreme Court are liberal only by comparison with the conservatives, and not to be ugly about it, but George Bush the Elder looks liberal compared to Anthony Scalia.

As to the decision, I don't like it--private taking to give to private developers, even in a situation where the benefit to the community is measurable is a dangerous precedent to set as far as I'm concerned, and Stevens' argument seems to be a bit of a copout to me. He argues that the courts give great latitude to local governments in these matters and that the court doesn't want to usurp the legislative branch in determining what an economic benefit is and if it's sufficient to justify the taking. My response is that one of the ultimate jobs of the courts is to be an arbiter of disputes, and these are as good as any to arbitrate. As it is, what the court has argued is that for a plaintiff to get redress, he or she has to approach the very body doing the taking in order to get a fair hearing, and that just doesn't make sense to me.

Eminent domain has a valid use for public projects, but not for private ones as far as I'm concerned.

Nice Nazz. :D

What I am particularly worried about is if “public use” can be contorted to give private organizations land, how long before they decide that the part about "just compensation" doesn’t matter? The constitution is worded the way it is for a reason. It is not like some religious text that can be “interpreted”. It uses very clear vocabulary to specifically spell out how government is to operate.

Nice Nazz. :D

What I am particularly worried about is if “public use” can be contorted to give private organizations land, how long before they decide that the part about "just compensation" doesn’t matter? The constitution is worded the way it is for a reason. It is not like some religious text that can be “interpreted”. It uses very clear vocabulary to specifically spell out how government is to operate.

You people keep acting like it is a new thing that eminent domain can be used to give land to private endeavors. It is not. We're talking about precedent that has been around over 100 years.

The only difference between this case and existing precedent is that the current use of the land could not really be shown to be adverse to the community in and of itself. That, I would argue, should have brought on a different decision in this case.

However, for the justices to make the decision that eminent domain can never be used in conjunction with private endeavors would have overthrown quite a bit of precedent (not unheard of, but certainly very rare) - and it was the precedent that held sway in the decision.

*snoooreeee*


Greed is not limited only to the right or left.....