Posted on 08/03/2005 2:23:53 PM PDT by Past Your Eyes
CRITICISM of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kelo vs. New London, which permitted the Connecticut city to seize several homes to clear the way for a proposed economic revitalization plan, has become personal. According to an Associated Press article published last week and an article in the July 16 edition of the Union Leader, “people from across the country are joining a campaign to seize Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter’s farmhouse to build a luxury hotel.”
Justice Souter did not write the decision in Kelo, but he joined Justice Stevens’ majority opinion. The campaign to seize his property began as the idea of a man whose views about government seem to be a bit out of the mainstream, but it has tapped into a deep well of public resentment at the court’s decision. Much of that resentment, however, is the product of a serious misunderstanding of the court’s decision. More ominously, the campaign to punish Justice Souter personally is the latest instance of a troubling recent trend of threats directed at judges who issue controversial decisions.
(Excerpt) Read more at unionleader.com ...
| Posted by Past Your Eyes On News/Activism 08/03/2005 2:23:53 PM PDT New Hampshire Union Leader ^ | August 3, 2005 | Peter J. Smith CRITICISM of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kelo vs. New London, which permitted the Connecticut city to seize several homes to clear the way for a proposed economic revitalization plan, has become personal. According to an Associated Press article published last week and an article in the July 16 edition of the Union Leader, “people from across the country are joining a campaign to seize Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter’s farmhouse to build a luxury hotel.” Justice Souter did not write the decision in Kelo, but he joined Justice Stevens’ majority opinion. The campaign to seize his property... |
||
|
|
||
| Understanding ‘Kelo’: why Justice Souter should be praised |
||
| Posted by grassboots.org On News/Activism 08/03/2005 11:00:42 AM PDT · 50 replies · 1,459+ views |
||
by the way, welcome to FreeRepublic
If making Souter feel the ramifications of his decisions is so troubling, why am I smiling so much?
What the good perfessor fails to address is that property is an INVESTMENT, and the purpose of the siezure is precisely to pay the current owners less than the value of the property to the new owner.
If the land has another use, its value has increased, but the town fathers chose to steal that increased value and give it to Pfizer.
Sheesh, how did I miss that? Sorry:( It's about a full-time job to keep up with this place.
Thanks for the welcome.
His brilliant dissent clearly explains why Peter J. Smith is dead wrong.
I'm sure that Peter Smith will dismiss Thomas' argument because he is well . . . a "conservative."
But to assume, as one must from Smith's comments, that Justice Thomas (not to mention Scalia and Rehnquist and O'Connor) do not unserstand the issues at stake is preposterous.
Boy oh boy, can this be an example of this guy's reasoning ability.
No, it means 93% of NH voters can read, and less than half of the lofty USSC can.
Boy, I wonder why that could be? (/sacrasm)
Acutally, seizing his house under his own idiot ruling is called "justice". What some of our Founding Fathers used to do to people like him involved tar and feathers. In extreme cases, a short drop and a sudden stop from a short piece of knotted hemp rope was involved.
it happens.
use the title-search function.
bear in mind: sometimes it fails
That is a totally bogus argument! Every place where I have lived, if the property has to be taken by eminent domain, the landowner gets minimal value for it. In my town there was a hold out a few years ago. The city had offered a man $60 for his land and house (the road widening would make the home uninhabitable). He refused because he could not relocate for that price and they condemned the property. They ultimately paid him $22,000 and tore down his house, leaving a little strip of land in the back that could not be built on.
Regarding the rest of this article, governments are moving like gangbusters in the guise of "redevelopment" to force less wealthy, or less desireable, landowners off their properties, and our legislatures seem to have little success in stopping this trend. We must turn this around, or nobody's home will be worth anything.
This man is a law professor!!?? It's ok to take the land because the owners are compensated? Compensation is a seconday issue here. First - is there a true public purpose for the taking. An increase in proprety taxes from a private development is not even close. Lastly, its funny to hear one of these libs say that the local governments habe all the answers when they usually support big - federalized government and wacky judges.
Perhaps Mr. Smith ought to actually READ the Kelo Decision, which never addresses the issue of "just compensation" at all.
THat should have read $60,000, not $60.
But the Professor reduces everything to money. Forget love of a place, memories etc....
To the socialists...All problems can be resolved with money.
Nobody is "threatening" Souter with harm -- just with having his property treated like he'd have Kelo's property treated. Why can Souter do that to somebody, but nobody can do that to Souter?
The most amusing point he makes is - its bad to use this interpretation against one of these judges when he actually supports the interpretation that allows it to happen!
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.