SCOTUS Ruling Opens the Door for Government to Destroy Unpopular Private Clubs, Businesses

Kerry Country ^ | 6/23/05 | ltn72

[ConsentofGoverned]

have to read the decision but if it is as reported then we as a republic are in very big trouble indeed.

any prime property wanted by friends of politicos can be condemned and taken for pennies not for public roads or water supply but for another citizen to profit from.

Will the American public see this for the tyranny it is??

impeachment is the only answer- the leftists on the court are going no ware while BUSH is president.

[mozrock]

Your money?

With rulings like this, I wouldn't count on it. After all, money is just another form of property.

Maybe your community needs a new homeless center. They might decide that "your money" would be put to better use by funding it.

See how it's going to work?

Not if I stick it in my mattress ... it might work! Maybe...possibly.....damnit, thanks for depressing me!

[anonsquared]

QUICK... let's use this decision to turn every ACLU office in the country into an ice cream parlour before it's changed by Congress!

[Truth29]

I share your worries about Republican nominees. Three of the five justices in the majority were Republican nominees and Bush is going to have an extremely difficult time getting anyone faintly conservative through the Senate. This decision undermines one the foundations of Western society and could lead to fascism with the state determining the "proper" use of property under any circumstances.

[skip_intro]

Maybe...possibly.....damnit, thanks for depressing me!

Trust me. You're not half as depressed as I am today.

[Peach]

This is Clarence Thomas's dissent:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1429187/posts

[Luddite Patent Counsel]

Yep, thank goodness we have a Republican president, so we won't get another Kennedy or Souter...

[Emmett McCarthy]

All negotiations are subject to "The Waco Option"

[mozrock]

Trust me. You're not half as depressed as I am today.

Today, it is you, me, and alot of other americans who realize what is happening to this country with what the SCOTUS is getting away with! You would think that there would be public outcries across the country with this ruling!! It is absolutely insane that they can get away with this!!!

[LM_Guy]

I say don't just complain here but email your house rep and senators and demand a new constitutional amendment so that the 5 idiots on the SC will now know what "Public Use" means in the 5th amendment. Here is the text I used, use or abuse as you see fit

---

As a Republican who very much believes in the power of individual freedom and the right to own property which has been a Constitutional guarantee and a bedrock of our American society. I am appalled by today's Supreme Court decision - "Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes" that allows a private developer to seize a persons land/home via a city's (or States) eminent domain power just so they can put a office building or shopping mall on it.

By the logic used, anybody with the help of the City Council or County Board could grab any other person's home & land if they are just willing to build a more expensive home on it or apartment units or a store etc. that makes the property more valuable, and thereby increase city/county tax revenues.

Please consider sponsoring a new Constitutional amendment better defining what is meant in the 5th amendment the term “Public use” as only property fully owned by a State or Local Government entity and not otherwise leased, rented or transferred in anyway to a private company or person.

[skip_intro]

Yep, thank goodness we have a Republican president, so we won't get another Kennedy or Souter...

Anybody remember what the vote was when Clinton put the radical leftist Ginsburg up for the court?

97-3. That's a whole lot of Republicans in there somewhere.

[bobhoskins]

All negotiations are subject to "The Waco Option"

Well, yeah, but it's not exactly like the government ENCOURAGES that idea (other than through their actions, of course .... grrr).

[Martin Tell]

I have a question.... does the state pay anything for this property? Sure! Whatever they feel like paying! It's sort of like haggling, with one side not able to make a response.

Sort of. The law varies among the states. The principle is that when the state uses eminent domain to condemn property they are to pay fair market value. Judicial recourse (lawsuit) is available if one disagrees with what the governmental entity offers. Some states allow juries for these type of cases.

I think this decision is unfair and just plain wrong.

I point I am not sure has been made: Who will be the biggest beneficiaries of this? Businesses with political pull. Now business interests can use (even more frequently) the mighty power of the state to line their pockets.

Don't get me wrong, I am very pro-business, but not socialistic, and many of our "conservative," business "friends" are probably very happy about this decision.

[absolootezer0]

quick.. everyone petition localities to seize mosques, and islamic owned businesses while we're fighting this. at least we could get something useful done.

[bobhoskins]

Hey, the news has been depressing me most of the day, thought I be polite and share. "From each according the his ability (to generate depression), to each according to his needs (lacking depression)."

[Frank_Discussion]

Well, yeah, that's what I was saying in my first post. It really feels like the SC is saying: "What ya gonna do about it?"

I gave up conspiracy theories a while back, but this stuff is beginning to make my teeth itch. Are they trying to stir up rebellion in order to push bigger restrictions? Such things have been known to happen, and usually just about the time the population thinks THEIR civilization is above such things... I don't mean to be so maudlin, but that's what's rattling around the ol' brain.

[Lekker 1]

How about a power company wanting to put a wind farm on a particularly beautiful stretch of Martha's Vineyard?

[Eastbound]

Pop Quiz:

How many articles and amendments to the U.S. Constitution have not been over-written, infringed upon, modified, side-stepped, or erased?

(a) One
(b) Two
(c) Three
(d) None of the above Follow-up questions:

(1) If you only had $100.00, how many gallons of tar can you purchase if one gallon costs seventy-five cents?

(2) How many pounds of feathers can you purchase with the change if one pound costs five cents?

[bobhoskins]

Don't get me wrong, I am very pro-business, but not socialistic, and many of our "conservative," business "friends" are probably very happy about this decision.

I prefer to think of it as "pro-capitalism", where the individuals have at least as many economic rights as businesses. A busines has the right to buy something from me ... if I ACCEPT the price they offer.

[Michael Barnes]

hehe...now your thinking!