NationStates Jolt Archive

Some of you may remember the fairly recent controversial Supreme Court ruling that said Eminent Domain can be used to sieze property not just for public use but also for public benifit, paving the way for municipalities to sieze property and allow big buisinesses to build on it just because they would pay more taxes.

Well someone came up with a plan (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3603670.html) to make one of the justices see first hand what it's like to be on the wrong side of his ruling.

I love irony like this... I hope they succeed.

1. Not quite what SCOTUS said

2. Why don't you just advocate tar and feathering any Justice who votes "wrong"?

1. Not quite what SCOTUS said
2. Why don't you just advocate tar and feathering any Justice who votes "wrong"?
Not a bad idea :)

http://www.myoldtruck.com/gallery/files/1/2/9/jeez_not_this_shit_again.jpg

1. Not quite what SCOTUS saidGimme a break C-T, I wasn't quoting the ruling just giving a quick synopsis with an emphisis on the controversy surrounding the decision.
2. Why don't you just advocate tar and feathering any Justice who votes "wrong"?I didn't call his ruling 'wrong', I mentioned being on the wrong side of it, i.e. having one's property siezed not for public use but because other use of one's property would better benifit the community.


This is sooo much better than tar and feathers anyways...:D

I find it interesting the conservatives voted against that case. I have to support them. I don't think he really requires that property when it can generate income. He decided so himself.

That.... IS SO AWESOME!

Take his land! Muahaha!

Since this will be a gloat fest ....

I'd like to note that the NAACP joined the plaintiffs in challenging the law in Kelo v. City of New London case.

That should blow the minds of some of the "NAACP is racist and evil" conservatives and libertarians in these forums.

This entire idea, I think is incredibly brilliant. This should seriously be done. I'd buy tickets.

Having had personal and first hand experience with the mis-use of eminent domain, I have to say that this article is just plain funny. If you're a judge having that happen to you kind of brings it closer to home.

I don't agree that this amounts to "intimidating" a justice. I think rather, that this simply puts a justices' decision in perspective. One I think they don't get to have all that often.

I like the idea. Maybe after we get him we can go after the other 5.

Um... while I didn't LIKE the decision, has anyone bothered to read that said decision just states that putting limits on this is the domain of state legislatures? SCOTUS decided for states rights.

Have you bugged your legislature to pass a law limiting state and local ED powers today?

Um... while I didn't LIKE the decision, has anyone bothered to read that said decision just states that putting limits on this is the domain of state legislatures? SCOTUS decided for states rights.

Have you bugged your legislature to pass a law limiting state and local ED powers today?
Too many people spend too much time listening to other idiots rather than reading the actual documents. Few people, for instance, noted that the decision followed long standing precedent--this wasn't new law being passed. It's not like Souter and the other 4 pulled the decision out of their asses.

I think it's a good idea. Government officials should be subject to the reprecussions of all their decisions, just as we suffer from them. I hope this goes through

Too many people spend too much time listening to other idiots rather than reading the actual documents.
Maybe it's just easier to yell at various federal branches instead of finding out how the goverment actually works?

Maybe it's just easier to yell at various federal branches instead of finding out how the goverment actually works?
It sure is. And there's a lot of people who have figured out how to make it pay off in spades. The rest of us suffer for it.

Some of you may remember the fairly recent controversial Supreme Court ruling that said Eminent Domain can be used to sieze property not just for public use but also for public benifit, paving the way for municipalities to sieze property and allow big buisinesses to build on it just because they would pay more taxes.

Well someone came up with a plan (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3603670.html) to make one of the justices see first hand what it's like to be on the wrong side of his ruling.

I love irony like this... I hope they succeed.

Where do I sign? I've always been against this Eminent domain garbage, and I love to see sweet 'ole justice exacted on them.

Too many people spend too much time listening to other idiots rather than reading the actual documents. Few people, for instance, noted that the decision followed long standing precedent--this wasn't new law being passed. It's not like Souter and the other 4 pulled the decision out of their asses.
Sure, that was what the judges thought they were doing, just upholding existing precedents. Given the rash of condemnation attempts, they clearly misunderstood the protections of private property that were given in the Constitution.

There are two sides to every decision and just being in the majority doesn't make the decision correct. Time usually reveals the truth. It's interesting that the dissent warned about widespread seizures of private property. Seems like the dissenters were right. And it didn't take too long to find that out.

Sure, that was what the judges thought they were doing, just upholding existing precedents. They clearly misunderstood the protections of private property that were given in the Constitution. Odd though, that the dissent warned about widespread seizures of private property. Seems like the dissenters were right.
Actually, from what I've been reading, there was an initial move toward seizures, and then local officials discovered just how unpopular a move it was and backed down. In short, local politicians have had to answer to their constituencies, just as the majority said they have to.

And it's interesting that in the case that started this controversy, Kelo v. New London, the city of New London has rethought the seizure, and that they may well let it die. There was an article on it in the NY Times a few months back. As I recall, I posted a thread on it here, though I doubt I'd ever find it now.

Actually, from what I've been reading, there was an initial move toward seizures, and then local officials discovered just how unpopular a move it was and backed down. In short, local politicians have had to answer to their constituencies, just as the majority said they have to.

And it's interesting that in the case that started this controversy, Kelo v. New London, the city of New London has rethought the seizure, and that they may well let it die. There was an article on it in the NY Times a few months back. As I recall, I posted a thread on it here, though I doubt I'd ever find it now.
I believe there is a moratorium on condemnations in Connecticut that stopped the Kelo plans. I wish this were the trend, but it seems like there's a new case on the www.ij.org site every day. States are trying to address the problem, but it's like a bolt from the blue for them. They never expected to have to protect Fifth amendment rights that were supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution. I fear that a lot of homeowners are going to lose their homes before the state government can act.

I believe there is a moratorium on condemnations in Connecticut that stopped the Kelo plans. I wish this were the trend, but it seems like there's a new case on the www.ij.org site every day. States are trying to address the problem, but it's like a bolt from the blue for them. They never expected to have to protect Fifth amendment rights that were supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution. I fear that a lot of homeowners are going to lose their homes before the state government can act.

I love how this same day you've said that abortion is an issue that should be left to the states, but eminent domain is not. Care to explain the difference?

The Fifth Amendment only says that property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. Whether and to what degree that public use is limited is a matter of interpretation. SCOTUS precedent going back over 100 years had already said it could mean public benefit.

And states are the ones that exercise eminent domain -- of course they are prepared to deal with the issue. :headbang:

Some of you may remember the fairly recent controversial Supreme Court ruling that said Eminent Domain can be used to sieze property not just for public use but also for public benifit, paving the way for municipalities to sieze property and allow big buisinesses to build on it just because they would pay more taxes.

Well someone came up with a plan (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3603670.html) to make one of the justices see first hand what it's like to be on the wrong side of his ruling.

I love irony like this... I hope they succeed.

There was something simliar to this that had happened in Indiana when INDOT's (Indiana Department of Transportation) DEIS (Draft Environmental Study) for the proposed route for I-69 recommended that it should run right through Indiana icon and Senator Richard Lugar's family farm nearby Martinsville, IN. Then someone pointed out that little fact to Mr. Lugar. It wasn't too long after that INDOT had reversed themselves and announced that it could be done without bissecting the Lugar estate. In fact, they reversed themselves so fast, that I think they might have given themselves whiplash in the process.

The Fifth Amendment only says that property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. Whether and to what degree that public use is limited is a matter of interpretation. SCOTUS precedent going back over 100 years had already said it could mean public benefit.

and even that isn't really completely adequate for certain situations - for example, even with midkiff hawaii still has near feudal land ownership patterns and various problems stemming from that.

2. Why don't you just advocate tar and feathering any Justice who votes "wrong"?

Hmm a good ole fashion tar and feather. That sounds like fun.

I'd love to read the story but the link doesn't work.

I'd love to read the story but the link doesn't work.
Didn't work for me either.
Eminent Domain however is our chance to turn the US communist without even changing the Constitution, just have the gov't take all the land and pay off the owners, after which currency will be abolished (back to communism 101 if you don't understand why) and now we have communism!....basically :D
It's a work in progress, but the plan is coming together quite nicely!