Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High Court: Govts Can Take Property for Econ Development
Bloomberg News

Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,521-1,527 next last

1 posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz; All

This stinks!!


2 posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:41 AM PDT by KevinDavis (the space/future belongs to the eagles, the earth/past to the groundhogs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz

The Supreme Court really sucks.


3 posted on 06/23/2005 7:31:26 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz

Not a good day for private property owners ~ Bump!


4 posted on 06/23/2005 7:31:54 AM PDT by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz

Whaaa????


5 posted on 06/23/2005 7:32:33 AM PDT by stevio (Red-Blooded American Male)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz

Bye bye property rights. First they take our money, now they take our property. Imminent Domain rearing its ugly head.


6 posted on 06/23/2005 7:32:51 AM PDT by Helmholtz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz
Here are all the day's rulings, from SCOTUSblog:

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local government may seize private property for purposes of profit-making private development, declaring that this constitutes a "public use" under the Constitution. (Kelo v. New London, 04-108).

The Court decided that it is unconstitutional to deny a free lawyer to an individual who has pleaded guilty to a crime and seeks permission to appeal. The 6-3 decision came in the case of Halbert v. Michigan (03-10198). Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced the decision.

In a second decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court ruled by a 7-2 vote that an amended habeas petition cannot avoid the federal habeas one-year filing deadline, when it makes a new claim that is based on facts differing from those in the original pleading. The case was Mayle v. Felix (04-563).

In the third ruling of the day, announced by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court ruled unanimously that the federal government retains its sovereign immunity and thus cannot be sued by farmers claiming that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation reduced deliveries of water to a water supply district in order to protect endangered species of fish. (Orff v. U.S., 03-1566)

The Court, dividing 5-4, clarified the power of federal courts to decide lawsuits that involve some parties who do not satisfy the basic requirement that their claims must be worth more than $75,000. In an opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court ruled that, if one party satisfies that amount minimum, the claims of others in the case may be decided even if those are for less than $75,000. The ruling came in the consolidated cases of Exxon Corp. v. Allapattah Services (04-70) and Ortega v. Star-Kist Foods (04-79).

In a 7-2 ruling in a habeas case, the Court ruled that that a rule 60-b motion seeking to challenge a District Court ruling on the statute of limitations for filing habeas petitions is not a successive petition, and thus may be decided by the District Court without prior permission from a Circuit Court. The ruling, announced by Justice Antonin Scalia, came in Gonzalez v. Crosby (04-6432).

Further decisions will come on Monday.

7 posted on 06/23/2005 7:32:52 AM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz

Renting looks better and better.


8 posted on 06/23/2005 7:33:03 AM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz

U.S. Supreme Court = Mother Government

"For the common good" (and more money for us)


9 posted on 06/23/2005 7:33:36 AM PDT by poobear (Imagine a world of liberal silence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: poobear
Not surprised, I'm waiting for a better housing assignment. Anyone with any idea of how long I'll have to wait????
10 posted on 06/23/2005 7:36:27 AM PDT by OldSgt. (USMC, Nam Vet, HMM-165)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
The tyrant is unmasked, we the people have lost all our rights. The government is our supreme master, we live to serve the state.
11 posted on 06/23/2005 7:39:21 AM PDT by jpsb (I already know I am a terrible speller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz

Stinks? Sucks?? That is far too mild. Private property rights in the country is now dead. Economic freedom cannot survive very long without private property rights.

This court is gotten so far out of line, it is almost treasonous. They are basing decisions on public opinion, on international law, on international opinion. What ever happened to basing decisions on THE CONSTITUTION??

This is very very serious and will have very serious implications for the future of this country.

And no, I do not think I am over-reacting.


12 posted on 06/23/2005 7:39:50 AM PDT by Tatze (I voted for John Kerry before I voted against him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz

Wow. This is bad. Very bad. How could anybody possibly see Wal-Marts and hotels and other private development as deserving of eminent domain?

My father's business was almost destroyed 40 years ago when the Commonwealth of Virginia condemned his auto shop and land and paid him about $.10 on the dollar for it, in order to build a four-lane bypass through it. He had to relocate and rebuild miles away on other property he owned. I can't even imagine the same thing happening just so a private owner can put in a business that'll kick back tax revenue to a municipality so they can spend it to increase their power!

}:-)4


13 posted on 06/23/2005 7:39:56 AM PDT by Moose4 (Richmond, Virginia--commemorating 140 years of Yankee occupation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local government may seize private property for purposes of profit-making private development, declaring that this constitutes a "public use" under the Constitution

In case you hadn't seen this yet.

14 posted on 06/23/2005 7:41:38 AM PDT by SittinYonder (Tancredo and I wanna know what you believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz
This freakin' totally stinks!!! It is so very bad.

Forget about the stupid amendments to ban burning the flag...how about an amendment to protect people's homes!?!

The lousy pieces of human crap. A total waste of skin.
15 posted on 06/23/2005 7:42:27 AM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz

Who were the 5?


16 posted on 06/23/2005 7:43:44 AM PDT by nuffsenuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz

This is going to make big headlines in Michigan, where the memory of GM's Poletown plant still burns hot. An entire neighborhood was devestated when the place was shoved down the throats of citizens, and the Michigan Supreme Court finally ruled it was a wrongful taking...far too late to do any good.

This is VERY bad news. Just which so-called "justices" voted for this?


17 posted on 06/23/2005 7:44:21 AM PDT by Kieri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz

This is not good.


18 posted on 06/23/2005 7:44:35 AM PDT by Aggie Mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Helmholtz
Unbelievable.

No, too believable.

19 posted on 06/23/2005 7:44:40 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuffsenuff

John Paul Stevens authored the opinion - dunno who the other four are yet (it was 5-4).


20 posted on 06/23/2005 7:45:10 AM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,521-1,527 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson