Posted on 02/15/2016 5:20:59 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Antonin Scalia, the conservative legal giant who died on Saturday at age 79, will be remembered for his outspoken views on legal issues ranging from abortion to gun control. Scalia's fierce opposition to eminent domain abuse is also worth remembering.
In 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kelo v. City of New London. At issue was that Connecticut municipality's desire to bulldoze a working-class neighborhood and hand the razed land over to a private developer working in cahoots with the Pfizer corporation. The idea underlying the city's scheme was that if people were forced out of their homes, their vacant properties could be put to more profitable purposes, thereby swelling the city's tax coffers.
The problem with this approach is that it violates the original meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says that the government may only take private property for a public use (and it must pay just compensation when it does). Taking property from one private party and handing it over to another private party, by contrast, is plainly inconsistent with all traditional notions of public use, a reality the Supreme Court itself acknowledged back in 1954, when it upheld an eminent domain "urban renewal" taking on the grounds that it served a "public purpose," a far more permissive, and therefore government friendly, concept than public use.
During the February 2005 oral argument in the Kelo case, the lawyer for New London urged the justices to give government officials the broadest leeway possible in eminent domain disputes.
But Justice Scalia was not feeling so generous. Under your theory, Scalia asked the lawyer, "you could take [private property] from A and give it to B if B is richer, and would pay higher municipal taxes, couldn't you?"
"Yes, Your Honor," the lawyer conceded.
"For example," interjected Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, "Motel 6 and the city thinks, well, if we had a Ritz-Carlton, we would have higher taxes. Now, is that okay?"
"Yes, Your Honor, that would be okay," the lawyer conceded again. In other words, because private property can almost always be put to a more profitable purpose, the government can effectively take any private property it wants for any "development" scheme it happens to cook up. So much for the text of the Fifth Amendment.
In the end, of course, Scalia and O'Connor were outvoted. Liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, gave the government all the leeway it needed to kick people out of their homes and wipe their neighborhoods off the map. "The disposition of this case," Stevens announced, "turns on the question of whether the City's development plan serves a 'public purpose.' Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field."
The Kelo case has been in the news again recently thanks to the presidential campaign of Republican Donald Trump. In Trump's oft-stated view, Kelo is a "wonderful" decision that should be respected and emulated. Trump is also known for trying to personally profit from Kelo-style land grab.
Trump's position is of course totally anathema to the position of Justice Scalia, who once went so far as to compare Kelo to Dred Scott. Perhaps when the next Republican presidential debate rolls around, one of the moderators will consider asking Trump why it is that he prefers the legal views of John Paul Stevens over those of Antonin Scalia on this matter.
Blah blah blah Rinse Blah blah blah
Nobody who supports Trump believes he ever used Eminent Domain for personal gain. Every move the man makes is for personal gain.
Of course not all eminent domain uses are abuses.
Scalia was a giant. Trump is a midget.
Ah, but did Scalia reject Bush-style eminent domain abuse?
Only took one post for the malignant Trump supporters to poop on Scalia.
Trump never took anyone’s land.
He is a private citizen with no power to take anything from anyone. The duly elected officials in various locals might have used eminent domain to help achieve their desired goal of revitalizing an area as they said they would do if elected. And Trump might have been the beneficiary of that action. But that is a world apart from claiming Trump took some ladies home. That's BS
Trump could get up on stage and wipe his butt with the Constitution. They don’t care.
Goldman Sachs, Canadian, stole Iowa, Ted Mean, Goldman Sachs, Sue over being Canadian, all polls anti-Trump unless he leads them, Goldman Sachs, Canadian, Mean Ted, Carson is a pathological liar, like a pedophile, like a violent criminal, Goldman Sachs, Universal Health care for everyone, Mean Ted, Jimmy Carter endorses Me, Goldman Sachs, Mean Ted, McConnell’s a good man, Canadian, Goldman Sachs, I agree with Bernie on big bad drug companies, I like Chuck Schumer, Mean Ted, Goldman Sachs, Canadian.
“I don’t like what he said, no, I don’t like what he said. I heard him, I was like, ‘Let me read it again,’ because I actually read it in print, and I’m going, I read a lot of stuff, and I’m going, ‘Woah,’ †Trump said in an interview televised Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.â€
The billionaire said he thought Scalia’s comments were “very tough to the African-American community.â€
Trump, who has supported affirmative action in the past but declined to say whether he was in favor of it today, said he has great friendships with black people.
In oral argument for a case challenging affirmative action at public universities earlier this week, Scalia posited that minority students who were not qualified for admission at elite universities would perform better at “less-advanced schools.â€
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/263074-trump-scalia-affirmative-action
RE: Trump could get up on stage and wipe his butt with the Constitution. They don’t care.
Just like Mitt Romney before him, Trump is a planned parenthood-supporting, gay-marriage loving, eminent domain land-grabbing, flip-flopping big government statist intent on being a tin pot dictator like Obama
Not for lack of trying. Based on your logic, a person who attempts an armed robbery at a bank but doesn't get any money is innocent.
RE: Trump never took anyone’s land.
He VOCALLY and OPENLY SUPPORTED the taking of someone’s land by force.
Take the KELO case for instance. In the infamous 2005 Kelo decision, the Supreme Court (decision authored by David Souter) held that “public use” could include, well, private use, so long as the new property owner paid more in taxes than the previous one.
In other words, it allowed developers and the government to gang up on homeowners. The developer gets more land, the government gets more tax money. The only losers are the original owner and his property rights.
Trump was delighted to find that the Supreme Court had okayed the brand of government-abetted theft. “I happen to agree with it 100 percent,” he told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto of the Kelo decision.
I still wait in vain for him to say he has changed his mind on the KELO decision.
We’ll never know. I think posting things like this right after Scalia’s death is despicable. It smacks of politicizing a good man’s demise. Of course, the OP is despicable, so what can I say?
RE: Blah blah blah Rinse Blah blah blah
Uh huh, what about the arguments out forth in the article?
Horse crap.look out side your window and see if you don’t see a power line for a private utility company. That was eminent domain. This is just a bunch of hooyeey!
Any eminent domain abuse, be in from Bush or Trump or (if you can show it ) Ted Cruz is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
RE: Horse crap.look out side your window and see if you don’t see a power line for a private utility company. That was eminent domain.
SO, you are equating power lines ( which provide electricity to the entire community ) with Casino Parking lots?
I wish they would build a casino or highway of ball field on top of my house. I would get 2-3 times the market rate.
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.