Posted on 07/19/2005 6:58:12 AM PDT by camle
By KATE MORAN Day Staff Writer, New London Published on 7/19/2005
New London — However improbable their chance for success, attorneys at the Institute for Justice asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to reconsider the decision in the Kelo v. New London case that allows the city to take private property in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood to make way for a huge new development.
In the three weeks since the court handed down its decision, the Institute for Justice has pressed local and state leaders to conserve the dozen houses and single apartment building the city has planned to raze since 2000. While applying political pressure, the attorneys are trying to keep all of their legal options open.
The likelihood the court will rehear the Kelo case is extremely slim. In the past, the court has reviewed decisions when they were rendered by a split vote of four to four and when a rehearing by the full bench of nine justices might produce another outcome. The court can also reconsider opinions that produce dramatic consequences that could not be foreseen during oral arguments.
In its petition for rehearing, the Institute for Justice claims that the June 23 decision, in which a majority of justices agreed that governments can take private property to promote economic development, had empowered officials in Texas, New Jersey, California and other states to condemn houses, small businesses and a Veterans of Foreign Wars post simply to usher in new development that could increase the tax base.
“In the scant time since the decision, it has already become clear that local governments and private interests have taken the decision as a straightforward green light, with no constraints upon the exercise of the power of eminent domain,” the attorneys wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at theday.com ...
Agreed, they should reconsider.
They are nimble enough verbal gymnasts to do it in a way that does not bruise their egos. I don't care about rubbing their noses in their mistakes right now, just get it reversed.
There will be time to fight other battles over the court.
i pray for guidance to these people. let us hope that renquist and oconnor - both of whom sided with the property owners (IIRC) stick around, and that maybe Souter feels the heat and is able to rationalize changing his vote.
of course if the rest of the infamous five want to save face that is OK too.
I don't follow the court all that well, but i thought they were in recess for the rest of the summer and that O'Conner's resignation was supposed to take effect so that the court would reopen with her replacement.
If she and/or Renquist aren't there, then that tips the court in favor of those that ruled "wrongly" in the Kelo decision.
I suppose it could take months/years for the court to actually hear arguments, if they even decided to take the case, so maybe O'conner (and Renquist) will be replaced by then. Still, weren't they both in the minority on Kelo? The makeup of the court would sill be in favor of the previous majority, unless one of those justices changes their mind.
O'Connor voted against the Kelo decision. Only if Ginsburg were replaced would there be a chance of reversing that decision.
it is my understanding that sandy-baby will remain until her replacement is confirmed. rendquist is much more problematic because he may go at any time, leaving us two votes shy. Ginsberg, a Clinton appointee will probably not change her vote, and neither will Souter (lost liberty project notwithstanding), but perhaps one or more of the rest of the infamous five might be persuaded to stand up for freedom.
Right!
Screw the landowners, they can go to hell. Since they are in Conneticutt, you just know they voted Democrat their entire lives. They got what they wanted, right? Bunch of socialists to begin with, do you think they will fight for YOUR rights? Say, gun rights? The landowners can go to hell, are there no homeless shelters for them?
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
Woooh!
Bush did get some votes here in CT. It's not as bad as Sodom and Gomoroh. Close to that but don't condemn the entire state even if 75% is lost.
Give us Bushites one more year to move out!
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.