Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes

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

[Blzbba]

"Hey DUmmies, these are the people you are in favor of. These are the people YOU want on the court."



Actually, I'm sure the DUmmies were originally against Stevens, Kennedy, and Souter's appointments, as all 3 were nominated by supposedly-conservative Republicans. I think both Kennedy and Souter were Reagan nominees.

[BlackElk]

This ultraelitist decision may be the straw that breaks SCOTUS camel's back. There is nothing liberal or conservative about not wanting to be forced from your property at all. Normal human lethargy militates against being disrupted as to your residence even in marginal neighborhoods, much less nice neighborhoods on rural lakes or coastal beaches.

How much less should we suffer such abuse when the purpose is not for an interstate highway or for some arguably necessary government purpose but for private development schemes which "benefit" the public interest (if any) at all only to the extent that the gummint critters will have more tax money to squander on their re-election schemes while (in many cases) being paid off by the bribes of feeding developers.

Lest I mislead, I have no problem with development but is must be achieved, if at all, the old-fashioned and more expensive way of paying as necessary in a free, arm's length transaction, with current owners. If your development project has greatly enhanced the value of their property, too bad.

There are an awful lot of trendy leftists (Phil Donahue, Marlo Thomas, Paul Newman, et al.) who own coastal and other verrrry desireable property in Connecticut and NEVER join with conservatives otherwise who are going to be VERRRRRY angry at this decision and the fact that it was delivered by the Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer group who are their normal heroes and Anthony Kennedy who made the difference for them on abortion.

Look for a wave of state legislation to restrain this result since Stevens ruled that locals know better than the feds. State governments are local by comparison with Feds.

Can we spell "wedge issue."

[fishtank]

[Blood of Tyrants]

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

It means that they can decide they don't like the color of your house and they believe it would be a "benefit to the community", they could condemn it, tear it down and sell it to a developer for $50.

[shellshocked]

PING!!!

[af_vet_rr]

Does that mean that my county may seize my proerty if they want to erect a hotel in place of my house?

Or a Wal-Mart or a Quick-Stop or anything else that has money/lobbying behind it.

The USSC dealt a great blow to private property rights - one of the great things that differentiated us from the rest of the world, and one of the things that made us such a free country.

A very sad day indeed.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Sorry, posted to wrong Freeper.

[blueberry12]

I want a new country.

How do I form a new country?

[sharkhawk]

Actually Souter was nominated by GHWB. Sununu talked Poppy into it because he had no paper trail and could not be slammed like Bork for actually being an intellectual conservative. Bush I was assured that Souter was a conservative, but there was no nagging proof of that in the records.

[MineralMan]

"Most people will never be affected by an eminent domain proceeding
Now what does that matter? Most northerners weren't affected by slavery either."

---

What does it matter? Try having a revolution that's unpopular with the folks around you. It won't work. My point is that talking about revolution over this issue is stupid. It's not going to happen. How about talking about specific ways to stop eminent domain in your city or state?

Talk to local, regional, state, and national lawmakers and insist that they pass laws prohibiting such actions. Duh. The Supreme Court did not say that laws could not be passed prohibiting such eminent domain actions.

You want to actually do something, instead of talking nonsense? Then start moving toward laws prohibiting such eminent domain seizures. Then you can actually do something instead of flapping your gums or pounding on your keyboard.

That's what I'm working on. But blather away, if you choose.

[shellshocked]

"the SCOTUS has now made it "legal" for government to seize your home and sell it to a private individual who promises to pay more TAXES on the land.
"


EXACTLY!!! A BIDDING WAR!!!

If the government wants to increase tax revenue, all they have to do is put your property up for bidding.

This is war against the people, against private property!

[Blowtorch]

Bush is trying to bring democracy to the Middle East. Maybe he should be spending more time trying to restore it here.

A very wise statement. It makes a great tagline. This essentially formulates a new law. The supremes have really overstepped their powers here. Eminent domain should prevail in few and far between cases, not expanded to corporations "for the public's good." I guess the pigs know what's best for the rest of us farm animals. Unlawful seizure of property has just become lawful. Watch out for the slippery slope. This is exactly what our forefathers bled to prevent. And it's always the same libs chipping away at our freedoms and building a NWO.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The "Gang of Five" strikes again!

[RSmithOpt]

My thoughts exactly!

Socialist politicians & judges = drug addicted whores & pimps.

Which means: the thought processes of money addicted egomaniacs willing to prostitute their souls as well as destroy the private citizen to satisfy their insatiable hunger for more money and power.

[bone52]

The supreme court does not exploit a hole in the constitution, they have created their own laws. The first instance of judicial activism occured when the supreme court gave themselves the right of judicial review in Marbury vs Madison. Ever since then we have had a rogue court that does whatever it wants. In the past we have just been lucky enough for the justices to have a soul. There decisions and actions have rarely had anything to do with the constitution.

[A. Patriot]

Everyone here needs to read The Law by Frederick Bastiat.

Bastait talks about "legal plunder" by government. Go HERE for a good copy of The Law.

[shellshocked]

"It is official citizens no long own property, you can only rent it, with the possibility of eviction at anytime."

Another perfect point. At least with land rents, known as property taxes, a person was safe in ownership of their property if they paid their land rents. Now, the Supreme Court jhas added a clause that says a person can be evicted at any time as well.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

This decision has opened the door for unbridled graft and corruption as developers will be looking to grease as many politicians as necessary to get the land that they desire.

Belly up to the bar boys...Happy Hour has just started! Pick your parcel and place your donations to the Selectmen in the glass at the end of the bar!

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

[Dan from Michigan]

Time for a new tagline. Michigan's Supreme Court overturned the old Poletown decision where a bunch of homes in a good area of Detroit were razed for an autoplant(that's no longer there).

SCOTUS needs some intelligence there, and Markman, Taylor, Young, or Corrigan will help.

[B4Ranch]

Following the plan, step by step!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1428558/posts?page=15#15