Damn! Americans just lost their rights to private property

[shifty]

Have you all read this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062300783.html

As quoted by someone else I was talking to about this:

What they have just done is make it okay for ANY LOCAL gov't to take Person A's land against their will and sell it to Person B.

Now, normal imminent domain, while I don't like it - does make sense - there are times where you just can't put a road or a water treatment plant, or whatever, somewhere else.

How do y'all feel about this?

[rambler]

I agree with,, it was a 5/4 decision from the supreme court.. I normally keep away from the political stuff here.. but this decision, is just wrong!

[bouncytruck]

I heard about it on the radio this morning. It doesn't seem right. Sounds like another way for the government to make money at the expense of the citizens.

[CPNE]

When I become "Leader of the Free World" this decision will be reversed...but hey at least we have "Family Values". Maybe what was meant by that was that your home would be razed and they'd put up a "Family Value Dollar Store"

[Shane]

If the gub'ment wants it .. they will get it ... always have ... always will.

This is really nothing new ... move along people ... nothing to see here.

[724wdcopper]

wow, umm... i'm not sure what to say. maybe i'm not getting it. lemme see if i have it: i own my house, but if the city wants to make my neighborhood into a strip mall or industrial area, they can take my house and level it? i understand they have to pay me fair market value, but instead of refusing, they take it anyway?

anyone remember the Drew Carey Show when winford lauder built the mall around drews house? not anymore! level that thing!

what a bunch of crap!

[Alexis]

this is funny. hehehe So much for democracy eh.

[neonlarry]

Iv'e been following this case for quite a while, I thought it would go the other way I guess I was wrong.
P.S. Those small tremors you felt were some of our founding fathers rollin over in their graves.

[newin72]

Just so you know, those are democrat liberal "justices"...

damn democrat commie bastards...

hope some of them retire soon so bush can appoint some new ones.

[boraxman]

IBTL

[smokekiki]

Not wanting to sart any thing political,but...You better go back and count how many are democrates and how many are republican.They are using the same tatics to take a farm outside of Coatesville Pa.,so they can build yet another golf course!The city of Coatesville is crossing thier bondery into the next township to do this!

[Fred T]

It's been going on here for years. Father-in-law lost part of his farm to build a Russell-Stover candy factory at Abilene. They were going to pay him less than half of market value. He had to hire a lawyer to get a decent price for it. I had wondered what had changed to make it some much easier to steal your land. Reminds me of the treaties made with the Indians in the 19th century.

[CPNE]

Originally Posted by newin72

Just so you know, those are democrat liberal "justices"...

damn democrat commie bastards...

hope some of them retire soon so bush can appoint some new ones.

Assuming your definition of the democrat liberal justices are those appointed by a Democratic President, there are only 2 of the 9. Ginsberg and Breyer, both appointed by Clinton. The remaining justices were all appointed by reuplican presidents from Nixon thru Bush Sr. Since the 2 Clinton appointees voted in the affirmative on this issue, that means that 3 "Republican conservative justices" also sided with them. Who you ask? Stevens appointed by Ford, Souter appointed by Bush Sr, and Kennedy, appointed by Reagan

It all boils down to interpretation of applicable laws, not party affilliation.

[jtminton]

I have a feeling that this will either:

A) result in some sort of legislation that counters this (remember, the SCOTUS is not any more powerful than the Legislative and Executive branch, whether they think so or not)

or

B) The case will be revisited at some point after the next Justice or two is appointed.

I cannot believe that this will stand in America for long.

[shifty]

Originally Posted by newin72

Just so you know, those are democrat liberal "justices"...

damn democrat commie bastards...

hope some of them retire soon so bush can appoint some new ones.

Ouch! There's someone who doesn't have their facts straight!

Why does everyone hafta break this down into party affiliation anyways? Why do you hafta play into the hands of the powers that be? They WANT you to take sides.

United we stand, divided we fall. If you keep playing the red vs. blue, liberal vs conservative crap, you are slowly contributing to the death of our country.

Liberals are not democratic commie commies.
Republicans are not all conservative, bible thumping idiots.
I won't discuss the neo-cons.

[shifty]

PS - our country is based on checks and balances. If anything, there should be a 5to4 ratio of democrat to republican if you're going to force it to be bipartisan.

If we only have republicans for justices, it will be a sad day for our country - all judgements will severely risk being one-sided. You'll only be representing one side of things.

Being that the majority of justices are republican...if you want to point fingers, i guess you know who to blame. but the D-justices are just as responsible. :\

[jtminton]

This thread is gonna get so locked. . . .

[shifty]

Ok, you're right. I'll shutup.

I officially bow out of this thread. Everyone, please don't argue. Get pissed and talk to your local politicians. It's the only way to stop this kind of nonsense.

Don't forget - we ARE the goverment. Those jackasses in office are only representatives that we've elected to work for us. If you don't think they're working for you, you need to speak up!

[chickenwing]

I would immediately start fighting on the fair market value. I would demand to base it on the value of the property after the "redevelopment" or based on the value "to" the redevelopment.

Decision is crazy. Given the latitude given to Zoning boards, I am not surprised. Bottom line, there are no private property rights.

[jtminton]

Must. . . . not . . . . say . . . what's . . . on . . .mind. . .

[chickenwing]

Tough, ain't it?

[CPNE]

Forget property rights, Big Oil got screwed too! Seems as if those two liberals sided with Exxon here and lost . If I were a TX oil man, I'd be pi$$ed, and vote Democrat next time

In a separate decision, the Supreme Court today rejected a bid by Exxon Mobil Corp. for a new trial in a class-action lawsuit filed by gas station owners. The 5-4 ruling means the world's largest publicly traded oil company will have to pay the station owners up to $1.3 billion in damages for failing to make good on discounts it promised them on fuel purchases over several years.

Exxon, based in Irving, Tex., had sought a new trial and asked the court to overturn a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on grounds that some of the station owners were improperly included in the class-action suit. The suit was originally filed in 1991 on behalf of more than 10,000 station owners in 34 states and Washington, D.C.

Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the court's majority, which also included Rehnquist, Scalia, Souter and Thomas. Dissenting were Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and O'Connor.

[jtminton]

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I guess "public use" now means "any time the government can make more money in taxes by giving the land to somebody else."

[littlee_domn8r]

It don't matter what party they belong to. Any so called american that would vote in favor of that should have his/her head examined, along with their personal finances. Big Money Wins, one way or another!

[CPNE]

Exactly jtminton. The decision was an interpretation of the fifth amendment of the Constitution not a political Blue vs Red debate. Here's what the majority said about their interpretation:

The majority endorsed the view that local governments are better placed than federal courts to decide whether development projects serve a public purpose and will benefit the community, justifying the acquisition of land through eminent domain. In his opinion, Stevens wrote that "for more than a century," the high court has favored "affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power."

New London officials "were not confronted with the need to remove blight in the Fort Trumbull area, but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference," Stevens wrote. "The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including--but by no means limited to--new jobs and increased tax revenue."

Stevens added that "because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment."

And here's the dissenting opinions view:

In a strongly worded dissenting opinion, O'Connor wrote that the majority's decision overturns a long-held principle that eminent domain cannot be used simply to transfer property from one private owner to another.

"Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power," she wrote. "Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded -- i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public -- in the process."

The effect of the decision, O'Connor said, "is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property -- and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

And I agree this opens up a whole can of worms. Since control of these projects is mostly local, I suggest you all pay attention to you local elections and zoning boards. That's where the power is to abuse this decision.