Supreme Court backs eminent domain

The Washington Times ^ | June 24, 2005 | Guy Taylor

[ovrtaxt]

The Supreme Court yesterday said cities can seize people's homes or businesses to make way for private commercial development such as shopping malls, a far-reaching ruling decried by property rights advocates.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices for the first time said governments can take private property and give it to developers citing eminent domain, a practice historically used for public highway projects.

[television is just wrong]

My next door neighbor, lived in a small two bedroom house she bought as a single mother in Glendale, Ca. When all the Armenians immigrants called Glendale, Ca, one of their Mecca's, the city of Glendale, City Council, and mayor started claiming emminent domain like mad.

She was put out of her house, bulldozers were in their front yards, they all went to the council meeting and begged. The Mayor stood up and said your 'little' homes must go in the name of progress!

Today, little tiny streets where you can only park on one side of the street to allow for traffic, has got three story apartments on both sides of the street. NO PARKING available for all the condos and apartments, and those lovely little bungalow homes on charming tree lined streets are no more. Glendale, Ca has been turned into a Mega-tropolis, with people that are of another culture all together.

The face of Glendale, Ca has been changed forever. At one time I wanted to live there. The homes were beautiful. Today, Glendale is a mess. Traffic like many parts of So, Ca, is just overcrowded. Our communites are being destroyed because of this 'progress'.

It is less the type people, more so the overcrowding.

[Roccus]

And now the SCOTUS has set the precedent that these actions ARE constitutional!

[television is just wrong]

I just remember when this woman moved next door to me. She cried. She was so upset losing her home. It was everything to her.

Those neighborhoods in Glendale, Ca were such small homes, but they were damn charming. Cute, and reminiscent of a previous era. GONE FOREVER. SAD.

[Roccus]

All your property are belong to US.

[television is just wrong]

That is about it.

Our property ownership rights have always been contingent on emminent domain factors, and paying your property taxes. We all know this.

The scary thing is that with all this growth especially in Ca, you are right our dearest dream of home ownership is being stolen from us. IN THE NAME OF PROGRESS.

[Protagoras]

Our properties always were subject to confiscation: 1. if we didn't pay our property taxes, 2. if we were subject to emminent doman issues.

You do see the big difference though, right?

[rollo tomasi]

If you want a Republican scorecard, it was 3 in the majority and 4 in the minority. Two of Clinton's picks went with the 3.

Goes to show if a Repub. is making the picks it's best not to throw a "moderate" (Living Constitution under international law) candidate no matter what. If the Dems want to "Bork" the pick keep playing their game (By sending more "extremist") but never compromise like Repubs have done with Souter and Kennedy.

[Let's Roll]

The libs on the Court are gobbling up every bit of our freedom while they still can. They know their numbers will soon be altered. I keep thinking it can't get any worse but it does.

Serious issues like this one can be reversed with a Constitutional Amendment (I think) - I know, everyone thinks their issue is serious. This one is - it means any developer can enrich himself at your expense.

Leaving aside the issue of property rights, there would be some case for this if most new development even pretended to be an improvement - but more strip malls etc. we don't need.

And that doesn't even touch on the payoffs that already go on at city hall to get "things approved."

Or what about this scenario: your property is confiscated and after it's torn down and the foundation for the "improvement" has been poured, the developer suddenly goes belly up - with their gambler mentality and penchant for being over-extended this happens all the time.

It isn't only that these judges are libs or don't believe in private property - they really don't understand how real life proceeds.

Sorry for the incoherence - just a collection of thoughts generated by this latest "vehicle for mischief" on the part of the what is supposed to be our most supreme court.

[quack]

Wouldn't you think that every living soul in United States of America would be a "property rights advocate"?

After this ruling yesterday,it didn't take long for the buzz to get around.Everyone and I mean EVERYONE I have talked to has been pissed.Those I talked to said everyone they had spoken with were pissed as well.This isn't going over well with US citizens.Democrats and Republicans,liberal and conservative,..all are in agreement about this issue.

[Wonder Warthog]

"As a result of the Supreme Court ruling I would have thought the headline would read; "Supreme Court ignores Constitution"."

Too generic. They've been ignoring the Constitution for a LONG time.

"Thankfully the Constitution was written in clear concise English grammar. It does not take a law degree or a high position in government to understand the words in the 5th amendment. nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

And by their lights, THAT is the problem. The Constitution "is supposed" to mean only what THEY say, and not what the plain language of the text says.

"In order to comply with the 5th amendment the Supreme Court changed the English language definition of the words "private" and "public" to suit their agenda. Have you ever read Animal Farm?"

Yup. "Animal Farm" "1984". All those "bad old literary visions" are coming true before our very eyes.

[kjenerette]

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter(1) or to abolish(2) it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

- excerpt from The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

Note1: The 1st Amendment provides the means to ALTER the Government
Note2: The 2nd Amendment provides the means to ABOLISH the Government �

[mict42]

The Communist Party is having a party with all the democraps.

[snowsislander]

Who here thinks that they'll reverse themselves REAL soon?

I believe that with the decision so recent that Justice Scalia will go with the doctrine of stare decisis, so it's going to be a much harder hill since I believe that he would now vote to not hear more cases on the same subject, and if one were to still come up, I think he would likely vote to continue the new status quo. So instead of just one swing vote, I think we will need to pick up two, and I just don't see that happening on this court.

But it does appear that there will be shuffling, and maybe a better court can be fashioned in the appointment process -- but the Democrats will attempt at all costs to obstruct any reasonably conservative candidates.

[NautiNurse]

Please remind us when MIke Bennett runs for re-election and we'll help you remind the good people not to vote for him.

Mike Bennett was originally elected in 2002. Due to the reapportionment, he slipped under the radar for reelection in 2004 after just a two year term, he qualified without opposition, and did not show up on the ballot for reselection in 2004.

As a result, he is in office until 2008.

[shellshocked]

"Who here thinks that they'll reverse themselves REAL soon? "


The government at all levels has become arrogant beyond any King ever did. I doubt there will be a reversal until it is too late and the shooting starts.

[floriduh voter]

The Judges and the legislators are putting the squeeze on middle America. Will America wake up before it's too late? rhetorical question

[panaxanax]

"Doubtful that the MSM will pick up on this"

I'm afraid you're right. Fox is really starting to anger me with their every 10 minute "FOX NEWS ALERT" everytime some celebrity farts or Tom Cruise gets a young girlfriend. Too bad they're the only ones that even offer any form of conservative view. We, as a nation, have become so immature that we almost deserve what we get.

We should be flocking to Washington by the millions with pink slips in our hands. Fire them all, from the President down to the state and local representatives. IMO it's time to start over again. I want my country back!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[floriduh voter]

If my web site is up in 2008, I'll help you help his opponent.

[NautiNurse]

Thanks, FRiend!

[floriduh voter]

Today's Date - From Rick Scarborough of www.stopactivistjudges.org

SUPREME COURT ATTACKS PROPERTY RIGHTS

On Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a city or town can take your home - or church - to allow a private developer to build a shopping mall or office complex. I believe it was the French economist Frederic Bastiat who said, "No man's life or property is safe while the legislature is in session." Today it's the courts that are the principal threat to life, liberty and property.

Under the doctrine of eminent domain, government has always had the power to take private holdings (for fair compensation) for public works - schools, roads, etc. In a 5-4 decision, the court has expanded eminent domain to include private projects which local government believes will generate more tax revenue than current use of the land.

The case involved homeowners in New London, Connecticut. They included a married couple in their 80s who had lived in their house for more than 50 years. The city decided it wanted to take their home and other dwellings so an office complex could be built on the site. A sharply-divided Supreme Court approved the confiscation.

Significantly, the court's three conservatives - Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist (joined by swing vote O'Conner) - sided with the home owners. The court's five activists - Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer - all authorized this gross injustice.

Some libertarians mistakenly believe you can have property rights without traditional morality. The New London case lays to rest that theory. The same Court that has time and again turned its back on the Ten Commandments, has just told local governments: "Thou shalt steal...if it will increase tax revenue."

SUPREME COURT'S IMAGE ERODING

Public regard for the nation's highest court is in steady decline. Given the court's mangling of the Constitution, this skepticism is a healthy development.

According to the Pew Research Center, today, only 57% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Supreme Court. That's down 11 points from January 2001, when the court issued its controversial ruling in Bush v. Gore, which some argued determined the outcome of the 2000 presidential election.

At the same time, with the possibility of a number of vacancies this year, 47% of the public say the selection of the next Supreme Court justice is "very important to them personally."

That more and more Americans are losing confidence is the High Court is hardly surprising. In recent years alone, the Court has created a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy (a right it said did not exist 17 years earlier), rejected a ban on partial-birth abortion, outlawed non-denominational prayers at public school graduations, and declared that the voters of a state could not prevent municipalities from granting special rights to homosexuals. Next week, the Court will determine whether or not to allow public display of the Ten Commandments (when camouflaged by secular documents).

We still have a lot of educating to do before the public understands that not only do justices have feet made of clay, but they do not have the final say on the Constitution's meaning. Some believe that better judges are the solution. But, absent accountability, good judges often go bad. We must - and we will - hold judges accountable. Only then will our lives, property and freedom be safe from an increasingly tyrannical judiciary