Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.
This stinks!!
The Supreme Court really sucks.
Not a good day for private property owners ~ Bump!
Whaaa????
Bye bye property rights. First they take our money, now they take our property. Imminent Domain rearing its ugly head.
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local government may seize private property for purposes of profit-making private development, declaring that this constitutes a "public use" under the Constitution. (Kelo v. New London, 04-108).
The Court decided that it is unconstitutional to deny a free lawyer to an individual who has pleaded guilty to a crime and seeks permission to appeal. The 6-3 decision came in the case of Halbert v. Michigan (03-10198). Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced the decision.
In a second decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court ruled by a 7-2 vote that an amended habeas petition cannot avoid the federal habeas one-year filing deadline, when it makes a new claim that is based on facts differing from those in the original pleading. The case was Mayle v. Felix (04-563).
In the third ruling of the day, announced by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court ruled unanimously that the federal government retains its sovereign immunity and thus cannot be sued by farmers claiming that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation reduced deliveries of water to a water supply district in order to protect endangered species of fish. (Orff v. U.S., 03-1566)
The Court, dividing 5-4, clarified the power of federal courts to decide lawsuits that involve some parties who do not satisfy the basic requirement that their claims must be worth more than $75,000. In an opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court ruled that, if one party satisfies that amount minimum, the claims of others in the case may be decided even if those are for less than $75,000. The ruling came in the consolidated cases of Exxon Corp. v. Allapattah Services (04-70) and Ortega v. Star-Kist Foods (04-79).
In a 7-2 ruling in a habeas case, the Court ruled that that a rule 60-b motion seeking to challenge a District Court ruling on the statute of limitations for filing habeas petitions is not a successive petition, and thus may be decided by the District Court without prior permission from a Circuit Court. The ruling, announced by Justice Antonin Scalia, came in Gonzalez v. Crosby (04-6432).
Further decisions will come on Monday.
Renting looks better and better.
U.S. Supreme Court = Mother Government
"For the common good" (and more money for us)
Stinks? Sucks?? That is far too mild. Private property rights in the country is now dead. Economic freedom cannot survive very long without private property rights.
This court is gotten so far out of line, it is almost treasonous. They are basing decisions on public opinion, on international law, on international opinion. What ever happened to basing decisions on THE CONSTITUTION??
This is very very serious and will have very serious implications for the future of this country.
And no, I do not think I am over-reacting.
Wow. This is bad. Very bad. How could anybody possibly see Wal-Marts and hotels and other private development as deserving of eminent domain?
My father's business was almost destroyed 40 years ago when the Commonwealth of Virginia condemned his auto shop and land and paid him about $.10 on the dollar for it, in order to build a four-lane bypass through it. He had to relocate and rebuild miles away on other property he owned. I can't even imagine the same thing happening just so a private owner can put in a business that'll kick back tax revenue to a municipality so they can spend it to increase their power!
}:-)4
In case you hadn't seen this yet.
Who were the 5?
This is going to make big headlines in Michigan, where the memory of GM's Poletown plant still burns hot. An entire neighborhood was devestated when the place was shoved down the throats of citizens, and the Michigan Supreme Court finally ruled it was a wrongful taking...far too late to do any good.
This is VERY bad news. Just which so-called "justices" voted for this?
This is not good.
No, too believable.
John Paul Stevens authored the opinion - dunno who the other four are yet (it was 5-4).
Apparently Panic Ensues on an hourly basis here.
And the Govt will read that ruling as Carte Blanche!
I want to know what the hell those 5 were thinking.
I hope Krystal was right this morning when he said that O'Connor is getting ready to retire.
John Paul Stevens
Anthony Kennedy
David H. Souter
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer
They are ALL deserving of IMPEACHMENT! Are any of these traitors planning to retire in the next 3 years?
"I can't even imagine the same thing happening just so a private owner can put in a business that'll kick back tax revenue to a municipality so they can spend it to increase their power!"
Don't you understand? Being poor or middle class does not best serve the common good (read scum sucker pockets). Such people must be discarded from the tax base as they serve no public use. /sarc
Would you want to invest in private property anymore, knowing the government could swoop in and steal it at any time, for any reason??
O'Connor was in the dissent. The majority was: John Paul Stevens (author), Anthony Kennedy, John Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.
You've gotta be kidding me.
NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.
Impeachment. Treason. Socialist, communist, fascist SCUM.
This CANNOT stand. I'm so pissed off right now I can hardly think straight.
Well now. The only way to overcome this is for Congress to pass a law that voids the decision. They can do it, but how to get it done?
They pulled the same thing on home owners in my parents neighbourhood in charlottesville for the proposed 29 bypass....which has yet to be built.
I'm very nervous about this ruling as our city and county governments have already demonstrated a supremem lack of respect for property rights.
This is the most obscene thing I have ever seen the SC do, there is no longer private property in the usa. We paid outrageous property taxes and then whenever the state wants they can just take our property and give it to whoever they want? And that is according to the SC legal?
For your daily dose of high blood pressure...
In the 1981 Poletown decision, the Michigan Supreme Court allowed the City of Detroit to bulldoze an entire neighborhood, complete with more than 1,000 residences, 600 businesses, and numerous churches, in order to give the property to General Motors for an auto plant. That case set the precedent, both in Michigan and across the country, for widespread abuse of the power of eminent domain. It sent the signal that courts would not interfere, no matter how private the purpose of the taking.
I wonder if they are "immune" from all out Rebellion. That is where we are headed due to sh*t like this.
Well My family is now screwed. Our property is going to be seized by the cityhall next door to us now.
I want to see the Preseident come out fast and hard against this decision, and stand up for property owners rights on this issue. On this he must take a stand.
I only rent. People are raving about the high real estate prices and how much they have made. But unless they are selling, and moving somewhere much less expensive or renting, the gain is only on paper. And all it means is a much larger property tax bill each year, which is another example of where who really owns the land?
Sigh. . .
I'm not surprised in the least by this list.
A black day by the signatures of those five.
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.
FWIW, O'Connor is liberal mainly on a handful of social issues, in particular abortion, which tends to get her vilified more than perhaps she should overall.
_____________________________________________________________________
"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda ~vs~ Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
– Thomas Jefferson
Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.
Justice James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration, the Constitution, Original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, and the father of the first organized legal training in America.
________________________________________________________________________
It's official, we now have an ILLEGITIMATE government.
So that leaves one question......
Is it time YET???
That should be David Souter of course (mind seizure!)
WTH!
ick....and 6-3 as well.
We really need 2 new conservatives on that court.
Eminent domain was not intended for Wal-Mart.
This is a terrible SCOTUS ruling.
With this...local and state governments will now feel justified in pushing the envelope even further in eminent domain. A related result is that big developers will now court local officials big time...look at the potential paybacks on this...and little possible risk.
Somebody please post the vote breakdown on this issue if you know it.
One more reason why replacing Rehnquist with anyone other that a true conservative would be disastrous...look at what we have now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.