High court OKs personal property seizures

[JMK]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

Wow would I hate to be these citizens. I'm not sure what their compensation package will look like but I'm sure it's not worth what they have invested financially and emotionally in their homes.

[AmazonBabe]

Heard this on news radio this morning and it kinda disturbed me:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/

Maybe it's just me, but I feel it's somewhat immoral to force someone to move from their home in order to bulldoze it to make way for a shopping mall.

There are plenty of other ways to bring in tax dollars and create new jobs without uprooting established homes.

Granted, there are circumstances in which it's justifiable for the government to sieze someone's property (with due compensation, of course), but I don't think private development is one of them.

Anyways, just my view on the matter.


I wanna know what you all think, especially those outside of the US. What do you think of this ruling the US Supreme Court just passed?

[Anbira Hicchoru]

This is the rotten side-effect of appointing a conservative-heavy judiciary to SCOTUS. Of course they're gonna kiss up to corporate interests.

Probably the most vile ruling I've seen in years.

[AmazonBabe]

Probably the most vile ruling I've seen in years.

I think that's a very appropriate and best way I've heard it put. I really am upset by this ruling. It makes me hesitant to even buy a home now, where in a year, some wealthy big-wig could come around and decide "Gee, I like this land." and buy it out to make way for whatever business he so chooses.

The low and middle classes stand no chance against the upper class now. Disgusting.

I truely hope those residents in Conneticut keep on fighting this and somehow this ruling is amended or abolished completely.

[Daiquiri]

Unless a person(s) has clearly broken the law (such as drug dealers, crimelords, etc), IT SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL FOR ANY REASON OR PURPOSE for a city/state/federal government to be able to seize/buy out one's personal property if the land/homeowner does not want to sell!! I can only hope that this situation happens to one of the judges (or someone close in their family) who voted for such a reprehensible law!! :mad

[Dasquian Belargic]

Reminds me of the beginning of "Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy"

(I merged AB and JMK's threads together)

[Lilaena De'Ville]

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

Obnoxious, and vile, just as Charley said. Call your congressman/woman!

[Drin Kizael]

Originally posted by Anbira Hicchoru
This is the rotten side-effect of appointing a conservative-heavy judiciary to SCOTUS. Of course they're gonna kiss up to corporate interests.

Charley I'm going to hope you typed this so fast you crossed wires. This ruling was about broadening the power of big government. It is apalling to the very core of conservativsm.

The court is NOT packed in this manner, which was the whole point of the judicial filibuster, to keep out the conservative judges. If the statement was not an accidental typo, it only shows that you're listening to mainstream news too much.

The chief voices in this ruling are John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both as flaming liberal as the day is long. The dissent was led by Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia, people who actually studied the constitution.

The fact that this ruling favors big business only helps to illustrate just how hypocritical liberal judges really are. They actually gave their alleged corporate enemies a huge gift in return for bigger government.


Probably the most vile ruling I've seen in years.

Agreed.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

Drin, there's no such thing as a real conservative in politics today. We've got liberals, and neo-conservatives who dress themselves up to be conservatives. Both are all about big government, for their own separate interests.

[Drin Kizael]

And I thought I was cynnical.

But the point remains, this ruling was anything BUT conservative. Also, Scalia and O'Connor (both Reagan appointees) have been writing far more dissents than anything in recent years.

If a leading democrat speaks out against this, I may drop dead from shock. I can see them and the media (same thing) going one of two ways.

Either they take the exact same spin on it that you did... avoid mentioning the names of who voted for and against the ruling, and slam it for catering to big business, then concede that nothing can be done because they are the Supreme Court. Maybe they had to do it because of the state that Bush has put us in somehow.

Or they praise it as a bold move to save the impoverished, blighted town of New London. They'll love that word, blight.

[Morgan Evanar]

I can see them and the media (same thing) going one of two ways. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anbira Hicchoru]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Fox News! We Report, You Decide! ;)

[Drin Kizael]

I'm sorry for thinking this thread was an opportunity to have a discussion of substance. But if all you want to do is laugh without knowing the facts, and just accept this shredding of our Constiution by rolling your eyes, never mind.

[Morgan Evanar]

Can we take a look at who owns the media in this country?

General Electric, Disney, AOL Time Warner, Westinghouse, or Newscorp.

[Cat Terrist]

Originally posted by Drin Kizael
I'm sorry for thinking this thread was an opportunity to have a discussion of substance. But if all you want to do is laugh without knowing the facts, and just accept this shredding of our Constiution by rolling your eyes, never mind.

I'm no expert in the US consitution, but I did read with some interest a much more detailed explaination of the issues involved. It had more to do with the state's right to create laws than anything else and unfortunantly based on that, SCOTUS ruled correctly as per the Consistution.

Sure, this is evil. But what exactly where the grouds of appeal to SCOTUS and under what part of the consitution was that appeal based on? You need to look at that first and then it seems that mabe, the court were looking at it for a different reason under a different part of the Consitution.

Edit : Or Im full of poo or something. Anyway.....


it was a 5-4 decision, which the conclusion being that the supreme court doesn't feel it's their job the decide what falls within the "public good" clause of eminent domain.

They stated that this does nothing to prevent states from legislating limits on eminent domain seizures by municipal government


Thank you for seeing through the knee-jerk reaction. Basically they said what the Conservatives would normally say, the states have the power. Rather than limit the rights of the states this ruling gives them more power. What they do with it is not for the federal government to decide.

Want your state to make laws to prevent this? Show up and vote.


The conservatives are really tripping over themselves on this one. In their haste to let the state's decide their own fate, they lost sight of the vital role of the government to protect individuals from people who would take their property away from them.

The SCOTUS is also supposed to be in the position to identify a nasty slippery slope when they see one. Here, people are left wondering: "if my government comes up with what they think is a better use for my land, can they take it without asking permission?"

The ruling in the state courts (which the SCOTUS deferred to) was based on what the city represented as its intentions with the plan. That's not sound at all - it's the legal way of saying "OK, we'll take you at your word on that". Bogus all the way.

So it's a states rights issue, but there's no doubt it's the legally right call and that is all SCOTUS can actually rule on..... it's the wrong one in so many other ways. Eminent Domain is for public purposes, not private. I can understand real anger and rightfully so, why should WalMart get your house to put a crappy apartment store?


In a bitter dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority had created an ominous precedent. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "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."

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

"As for the victims," Justice O'Connor went on, "the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."

[Drin Kizael]

Originally posted by Cat Terrist
I'm no expert in the US consitution, but I did read with some interest a much more detailed explaination of the issues involved. It had more to do with the state's right to create laws than anything else and unfortunantly based on that, SCOTUS ruled correctly as per the Consistution.

Yeah that's what swayed Kennedy's vote, resulting in the decision. And I have to confess, that was part of my initial gut reaction, too.

But the action that New London is trying to make is not a clear cut law, otherwise it wouldn't have had to go to court. That means it was not voted on by the people of CT, a violation of the 10th ammendment. And it infringes on citizens' rights to private property, a blatent rewrite of the 5th Ammendment and an erosion of the concept of illegal search and seizure.

What's worse is the precedent it creates. The supreme court has just given municpal government the power to redefine "community benefit" as they see fit, not to mention made it harder to fight city hall if they tried to abuse it.

Stuff like this was supposed to be what our judicial branch was originally created to stop. But after 200 years of baseless rulings and court packing, they're gaining alarming momentum toward becoming the third arm of the legislative branch.


Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
Can we take a look at who owns the media in this country?

General Electric, Disney, AOL Time Warner, Westinghouse, or Newscorp.
I'm sorry, but... Do you have a point? Yes it's all entertainment. The networks they air on are all owned by companies that just want to make money, even Fox. I don't pretend they aren't.

So instead can we talk about the number of reporters with documented, more often than not admitted liberal bias, or the number of former Clinton and Carter staffers that have jobs on networks and papers. Then maybe we can talk about the numerous gaffs by CBS this past year alone in their efforts to destroy the administration.

[Daiquiri]

All I know is that through the years Ive kept getting the growing sensation that I need to look over my shoulder...Big Brother is watching!

[AmazonBabe]

Originally posted by Daiquiri Van-Derveld
All I know is that through the years Ive kept getting the growing sensation that I need to look over my shoulder...Big Brother is watching!

Thank gawd I'm not the only one that feels this way. I was beginning to think I was becoming paranoid! ^_^;

[Morgan Evanar]

This ruling sucks sucks sucks sucks.


Originally posted by Drin Kizael
I'm sorry, but... Do you have a point? Yes it's all entertainment. The networks they air on are all owned by companies that just want to make money, even Fox. I don't pretend they aren't.

Then maybe we can talk about the numerous gaffs by CBS this past year alone in their efforts to destroy the administration. Can you please prove that? Because aside from the bad documentation CBS acted on (and was subsequently crucified for, not that the information was ever disproven), I'm not distinctly aware of any "efforts" to take down the administration, but then I seldom watch televison news.

[Drin Kizael]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
Can you please prove that? Because aside from the bad documentation CBS acted on (and was subsequently crucified for, not that the information was ever disproven), I'm not distinctly aware of any "efforts" to take down the administration, but then I seldom watch televison news.
I'd ask if you were kidding again, but I know you're not. I was expecting to have to dig up statistics on the other stuff, not the self-evident part.

It's really getting off topic, though. If you don't consider the disproportionately negative stories, the repeated hammering on empty allegations about Bush's National Guard service to be a deliberate effort... I don't know what else to say.

[Morgan Evanar]

I don't watch television news, like I said, so you need to prove what you're saying with some kind of evidence beyond that scandal.

[Daiquiri]

Originally posted by Drin Kizael
I'd ask if you were kidding again, but I know you're not. I was expecting to have to dig up statistics on the other stuff, not the self-evident part.

It's really getting off topic, though. If you don't consider the disproportionately negative stories, the repeated hammering on empty allegations about Bush's National Guard service to be a deliberate effort... I don't know what else to say.



Makes me want to run out and buy stocks in Disney, Fox, etc.

[AmazonBabe]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
This ruling sucks sucks sucks sucks.

To the Nth degree.

I'm really wondering, what with this about to happen to those poor residents in Conneticut, and with some of them saying they're just going to stay in their homes ad not move even when the bulldozers show up, what happens then? Are the police gona storm the property and arrest them? I mean, suddenly they're not on private property anymore.

This all came about because some big company wanted that river-front land. But it won't stop there. What's to prevent other large coporations or the wealthy from claiming the same sort of thing "this land would bring in tax revenue, blah blah". Basically, any decent land with a view will now be up for grabs and those poeple living there are screwed.

Hell, at this point, those living in the 'hood are probably better off in actually keeping their homes than say those living in beach-front homes. East LA will live. Malibu will die. It just boggles the mind. :x

[Morgan Evanar]

lol communism! Oh wait :(

[Lady Vader]

>_< I wasn't going to say it, but... yeah. :cry

[Yurza Magus]

Praise whoever that my small town is not on of the better ones in CA, but AB is right. Once one company does it, this will just start the ripple effect and next thing you know we are all living in cramped apartments.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

And we condemn Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe when they do essentially the same thing. This is a lot of pie in the eye of our credibility on the world scene.

[Tiberius Anar]

We have recently got something similar arranged in the UK. Local government can use Compulsory Purchase Orders to aquire land- with or without buildings on it- under certain circumstances. It is for health and safety things (e.g. derlict houses). Here the LG issuing the order has to pay a hefty compensation package- market value plus 5% I believe. How this will work out is not clear as it has yet to be tested in court.