Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes

charlotte.com - AP ^ | Jun. 23, 2005 | HOPE YEN

[jess35]

You must have been reading a different thread. I saw quite a lot of agreement with Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas.

[babyface00]

God knows I don't like the results this ruling will have, but, as a Conservative, or what I thought was a Conservative, I'm wondering if the decision isn't consistent with Conservative belief.

Don't we believe that the Constitution is supposed to provide limits to the Federal government? Don't we believe that state and local governments should be independent of the federal government as much as possible?

By this ruling, the SC is saying that state and local governments are free to define eminent domain as they will. From a practical standpoint, most states are probably going to interpret that liberally, but how we run our states isn't the federal government, or the SC's problem. If eminent domain is abused, our recourse should be to our state and/or local legislators, not to the SC and not to the feds unless its an abuse by the federal government.

Sure, this ruling is inconsistent with the SC's ruling on other subjects, but taking the ruling by itself, doesn't it represent what we advocate?

Again, I don't like the probable results of this ruling, but that isn't necessarily the SC's fault.

[Rushgrrl]

well, you can be sure that all those affluent people, including those left-loving celebrities in Malibu, who live on beautiful beach-front property on any of the coasts will not be thrilled with the idea of their city being able to take their homes to put up yet another beach-front mansion hotel & connected mall, spa, you-name-it-fill-in-the-blank-with-the-next-trendy-thing.

It's ridiculous that this is happening, but hell, we should have realized it was just a matter of time before something like this were to happen, really.

Libs hate poor people and if they can run out the poor and keep them "in ghettos where they belong and take the land they have that is better used by those who appreciate it", then all the better for the lib agenda, really. It's amazing how conservatives always get tagged as the "poor-hating elite"...pfft gimme a break.

[conserv13]

You are right. Some states and localities do not have eminent domain laws. Move there.

[MineralMan]

"While the government has been trampling on our rights, I seem to recall our leadership futzing around with such vital, important issues as Terry Schiavo, Gay Marriage and Flag Burning."

---

Well, it makes them look busy, I suppose, and keeps them from doing anything really important.

[ElRushbo]

Wow surprising results-- all the conservatives on the court are against the unconstitutional taking of private property- all the liberals are for it...except Sandra..

I still can't understand how people can't see that liberals are evil-- they are on the wrong side of EVERY issue. Someone should send a letter to all these private property owners making them aware of the LIBERALS on the court that ruled against them.

[Finger Monkey]

Try having a revolution that's unpopular with the folks around you.

Every heard of the American Revolution? It wasn't exactly popular.

[mware]

That is exactly what it mean. The graft that will come from this is going to be astounding. This is way to much of a temptation for county governments across the country.

[politicket]

They just stepped over the final line...

[jess35]

You're right. The majority was behind the crown. A minority of the population rose up and took over.

[reflecting]

Exactly! This is a ruling against the economically vulnerable in our society. Those who have little influence. When the low rent district is seized for more profitable development where do the low renters go?

The rights of all men, enumerated in the constitution, are for each and every man regardless of economic might. This ruling tramples the property rights of the powerless.

[jsh3180]

""Again, I don't like the probable results of this ruling, but that isn't necessarily the SC's fault""

You hit the nail on the head there in my opinion. Read my post above #212. The SC decides on the merits of the law. The liberal democrats have become quite adept at stealing property rights. They made the law in Connecticut and they crafted it with proper legal language.

The solution is to do away with liberal thieving government lawyers, not in bashing the SC.

[ElRushbo]

another oppurtunity for GWB to step up and say something. An issue ALL Americans can relate to. What are the odds he doesn't say a word. Probably 90%

[Tired of Taxes]

The SCOTUS has NOT said that such eminent domain MUST be done. It has only said that it CAN be done.

That's the problem. It ruled that it CAN be done. The states are already seizing property, and now the federal gov't just said it's OK for them to do so.

But your idea of backing state constitutional amendments against eminent domain would be one way to fight this ruling. OK, so, that's one viable solution.

So, where do we all start?

[madison10]

Can we put a nice, new mall on Martha's Vineyard? I'm thinkin' of the Kennedy Estate. Heard it has a great view for condos.

[MineralMan]

"Every heard of the American Revolution? It wasn't exactly popular."

---

Oh, it was popular enough. How many folks do you suppose that you know would be in favor of a revolution over eminent domain? Look around you.

[blueberry12]

Beautiful waterfront properties and lots in big cities will be tempting to seize, so I guess the prices of these properties will go down.

Would you like to pay full price for a beautiful million-dollar waterfront property? I know I would never do that.

From now on, wise people will want to buy properties that nobody wants. Away from the city. Away from the waterfront. Away from nice views.

[spunkets]

Communists comrade.

[Finger Monkey]

This decision will be noted in the history books as the first shot of the 2nd Revolution.

Ah, Bloody, one can only hope.

[TigersEye]

FMCDHs