USA Supreme Court Basically Tells Property Owners: "F*** You!" - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 30 (permalink) Old Jun 23rd, 2005, 09:04 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
SelesFan70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 11,030
                     
USA Supreme Court Basically Tells Property Owners: "F*** You!"

High court OKs personal property seizures
Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities

Thursday, June 23, 2005; Posted: 10:50 a.m. EDT (14:50 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/sc....ap/index.html

This is the most egregious case over government over-stepping...right along with the Terri Schiavo fiasco!

Tammy Bruce RightSideOfTheRainbow

Liberals: Hard on the unborn, soft on terrorists

Man-made climate change is a LIE

COUNTDOWN!
SelesFan70 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 30 (permalink) Old Jun 23rd, 2005, 09:05 PM
Senior Member
 
Sally Struthers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UnattractiveOn the inside
Posts: 10,944
                     
notice it's the liberal Justices in the majority

Blowing out someone else's candle does not make yours shine brighter.
Sally Struthers is offline  
post #3 of 30 (permalink) Old Jun 23rd, 2005, 09:08 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
SelesFan70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 11,030
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sally Struthers
notice it's the liberal Justices in the majority
Well of course! Government is always the answer for liberals...

Tammy Bruce RightSideOfTheRainbow

Liberals: Hard on the unborn, soft on terrorists

Man-made climate change is a LIE

COUNTDOWN!
SelesFan70 is offline  
post #4 of 30 (permalink) Old Jun 23rd, 2005, 09:26 PM
Senior Member
 
alexusjonesfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: inside
Posts: 7,837
                     
how outrages, hang them by testicles etc. mad
alexusjonesfan is offline  
post #5 of 30 (permalink) Old Jun 23rd, 2005, 11:32 PM
Senior Member
 
Sally Struthers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UnattractiveOn the inside
Posts: 10,944
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by SelesFan70
Well of course! Government is always the answer for liberals...

you can bet that if rehnquist, thomas, scalia, and o'conner were the majority vote in favor of seizure this thread would be hopping instead of all the way down the page

Blowing out someone else's candle does not make yours shine brighter.
Sally Struthers is offline  
post #6 of 30 (permalink) Old Jun 24th, 2005, 01:21 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: florida
Posts: 24,503
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sally Struthers
you can bet that if rehnquist, thomas, scalia, and o'conner were the majority vote in favor of seizure this thread would be hopping instead of all the way down the page
Well, the Scalia gang probably would have been in favor of parading a vegetating woman all over the media and calling her by her first name in order to suffice you conservatives too.

I wonder how the board would have reacted to that.

-one of those "bad" Williams fans that everyone keeps talking about


OFFICIAL BLACKSMITH OF THE ROYAL COURT

I don't mind straight people as long as they act gay in public!
Pureracket is offline  
post #7 of 30 (permalink) Old Jun 24th, 2005, 01:25 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 7,274
                     
Stop your pandering. I'm liberal and I disagree with this decision. The court fouled this up bigtime.

The WTA Women of Wonder Featuring....The Goddess: Venus Williams The Glamazon: Serena Williams The Lioness: Jennifer Capriati The High Priestess: Monica Seles The Saint: Kim Clijsters The Phoenix: Chanda Rubin The Bon Vivant: Amelie Mauresmo The Titan: Lindsay Davenport The Courtesan: Anna Kournikova The Exile: Martina Hingis The Sorceress: Anatasia Myskina The Minx: Maria Sharapova
Cybelle Darkholme is offline  
post #8 of 30 (permalink) Old Jun 24th, 2005, 01:28 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: florida
Posts: 24,503
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybelle Darkholme
Stop your pandering. I'm liberal and I disagree with this decision. The court fouled this up bigtime.
Oh, the decision is fucked up as hell, but take a look @ some of the 8-1 decisions with Thomas being the only dissenting voice. Ol' Clarence has lost his mind. He will never forgive the Black community for those Anita Hill hearings.

-one of those "bad" Williams fans that everyone keeps talking about


OFFICIAL BLACKSMITH OF THE ROYAL COURT

I don't mind straight people as long as they act gay in public!
Pureracket is offline  
post #9 of 30 (permalink) Old Jun 24th, 2005, 03:15 AM
country flag ys
Adrenaline junkie
 
ys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: always on the move
Posts: 21,550
                     
Why even discussing the subject that you simply do not understand? Sure, what follows is not that the property is confiscated. What follows is that considerations of public importance could override the private property rights. I am sure, it regulates the price calculation issues etc.. There are a lot of cases when a private owner of land blocks construction of the road that people badly need, blocks construction of other elements of infrastructure , blocks public acquisition of land for state and national parks. Now often the best pieces of land are taken by super-rich people and turned into their private golf-courses, and instead of hundreds of mothers enjoying walking there with their kids it is given to a dozen of rich old farts..Hundreds of examples.

"..just knowing that as long as i choose life, there is hope."

Je ne suis pas charlie

PLAY TENNIS!
ys is offline  
post #10 of 30 (permalink) Old Jun 24th, 2005, 03:44 AM
Senior Member
 
mboyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,514
                     
Liberal tyranny once again. I can't WAIT until 2006 when the stupidcrats will lose another 5 or ten seets in the senate. Then they won't even be able to filibuster. Then, we'll get real judges in the supreme court. Bring on the conservative era, baby .

Romney/Ryan 2012
mboyle is offline  
post #11 of 30 (permalink) Old Jun 24th, 2005, 03:46 AM
Senior Member
 
mboyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,514
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by ys
Why even discussing the subject that you simply do not understand? Sure, what follows is not that the property is confiscated. What follows is that considerations of public importance could override the private property rights. I am sure, it regulates the price calculation issues etc.. There are a lot of cases when a private owner of land blocks construction of the road that people badly need, blocks construction of other elements of infrastructure , blocks public acquisition of land for state and national parks. Now often the best pieces of land are taken by super-rich people and turned into their private golf-courses, and instead of hundreds of mothers enjoying walking there with their kids it is given to a dozen of rich old farts..Hundreds of examples.
It is unconstitutional. The constitution clearly states that private property may not be seized or intruded upon. We make exceptions (that aren't constitutionally warranted, really) for when the government builds a road or a railroad. Building a shopping mall is a very different story. There is no way that is legal. Don't worry, people! The liberals will be completely irrelevant in this country in a few short years, and then we will live by the constitution for real.

Romney/Ryan 2012
mboyle is offline  
post #12 of 30 (permalink) Old Jun 24th, 2005, 03:53 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
SelesFan70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 11,030
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by ys
Why even discussing the subject that you simply do not understand? Sure, what follows is not that the property is confiscated. What follows is that considerations of public importance could override the private property rights. I am sure, it regulates the price calculation issues etc.. There are a lot of cases when a private owner of land blocks construction of the road that people badly need, blocks construction of other elements of infrastructure , blocks public acquisition of land for state and national parks. Now often the best pieces of land are taken by super-rich people and turned into their private golf-courses, and instead of hundreds of mothers enjoying walking there with their kids it is given to a dozen of rich old farts..Hundreds of examples.
What you say "might" be a good case (and 5 of the 9 Supremes thought it was), but private property is just that..private. The government has no business taking somone's land/property. I can guarantee you that the government/local city will NOT put a park for mommies to walk their kids. They will build hotels and whatnot to raise money.

Tammy Bruce RightSideOfTheRainbow

Liberals: Hard on the unborn, soft on terrorists

Man-made climate change is a LIE

COUNTDOWN!
SelesFan70 is offline  
post #13 of 30 (permalink) Old Jun 24th, 2005, 03:56 AM
Senior Member
 
mboyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,514
                     
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That's the fourth ammendment. People have the right to their property unless they are suspected of a crime. But what do the liberals care about the constitution? Obeying it doesn't make them feel like good people.

Romney/Ryan 2012
mboyle is offline  
post #14 of 30 (permalink) Old Jun 24th, 2005, 04:00 AM
Senior Member
 
mboyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,514
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by SelesFan70
What you say "might" be a good case (and 5 of the 9 Supremes thought it was), but private property is just that..private. The government has no business taking somone's land/property. I can guarantee you that the government/local city will NOT put a park for mommies to walk their kids. They will build hotels and whatnot to raise money.
They wouldn't even have the right (and I am talking about via common law, not constitutional law,) to build a park. That is not a necessary public commodity. The state of Massachussetts tried to take my father's land because he has about 52 acres on an estuary with a lot of wildlife and stuff. He obviously fought it, however, and the state backed off because his lawyer pointed out that open space was not a public benefit in the way required by the eminent domain law.

Romney/Ryan 2012
mboyle is offline  
post #15 of 30 (permalink) Old Jun 24th, 2005, 04:10 AM
country flag ys
Adrenaline junkie
 
ys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: always on the move
Posts: 21,550
                     
Private property is not a sacred cow. Especially privately owned land. We need a consitutional amendment that would make all land a public property.

"..just knowing that as long as i choose life, there is hope."

Je ne suis pas charlie

PLAY TENNIS!
ys is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Registration Image

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome