Replies

been a long time since we exchanged thoughts on this thread, but I found something that supports what I first stated (that Souter ruled the taking of private property was ok as long as it was for public benefit - and in this case the benefit was rendered by gaining an increased tax revenue from the usurping private entity):

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html

Please note the second sentence, para (b): "...The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue...".

Not explicitly stated was that the increased tax revenue would come from a private company which was to build more residences (condos, iirc). But really, once public use has been transposed into public benefit, then all the florid, vague writings typical of Lawyer-ese won't cover up the simple fact that I can take your house and build a multi-story condo which has ten residences in the same land space, all providing much more tax revenues to the local politicians.

Souter's villainy struck a mortal blow to the vital cornerstone of property rights. Granted, I'm no lawyer, but truth be told, though I'm but a layman, I'm sick and tired of assholes like Souter who don their robes, swear the Rule of Law and obedience to the Constitution as their guiding lights, then proceed to implement an anti-American, anti-freedom agenda in the name of big government.

I don't need a degree in Law to know when I'm getting screwed.