PDA

View Full Version : USA Supreme Court Basically Tells Property Owners: "F*** You!"


SelesFan70
Jun 23rd, 2005, 09:04 PM
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/scotus.property.ap/index.html

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

Sally Struthers
Jun 23rd, 2005, 09:05 PM
notice it's the liberal Justices in the majority :tape:

SelesFan70
Jun 23rd, 2005, 09:08 PM
notice it's the liberal Justices in the majority :tape:

Well of course! Government is always the answer for liberals... :tape:

alexusjonesfan
Jun 23rd, 2005, 09:26 PM
how outrages, hang them by testicles etc. mad

Sally Struthers
Jun 23rd, 2005, 11:32 PM
Well of course! Government is always the answer for liberals... :tape:


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 :tape: :o ;)

Pureracket
Jun 24th, 2005, 01:21 AM
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 :tape: :o ;)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.

Cybelle Darkholme
Jun 24th, 2005, 01:25 AM
Stop your pandering. I'm liberal and I disagree with this decision. The court fouled this up bigtime.

Pureracket
Jun 24th, 2005, 01:28 AM
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.

ys
Jun 24th, 2005, 03:15 AM
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.

mboyle
Jun 24th, 2005, 03:44 AM
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.:woohoo: :bigclap: Then, we'll get real judges in the supreme court. Bring on the conservative era, baby:rocker2: .

mboyle
Jun 24th, 2005, 03:46 AM
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.

SelesFan70
Jun 24th, 2005, 03:53 AM
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. :rolleyes:

mboyle
Jun 24th, 2005, 03:56 AM
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.

mboyle
Jun 24th, 2005, 04:00 AM
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. :rolleyes:

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.

ys
Jun 24th, 2005, 04:10 AM
Private property is not a sacred cow. Especially privately owned land. We need a consitutional amendment that would make all land a public property. :)

~ The Leopard ~
Jun 24th, 2005, 04:27 AM
Disgusting. :fiery:









^sarcasm warning for all the idiots on the board who have no sense of irony

Scotso
Jun 24th, 2005, 04:36 AM
There are like two "liberal" judges. They can't decide cases on their own.

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

mboyle
Jun 24th, 2005, 05:11 AM
Private property is not a sacred cow. Especially privately owned land. We need a consitutional amendment that would make all land a public property. :)

thank god communists like you are considered fools by the majority of the public. Everything the government does, it does badly and worse than private enterprises. The one exception is the military, and that is only because fighting for money equals constant, total war without morals and with no objective. Communism has failed miserably everywhere it has been tried. Get over it.

mboyle
Jun 24th, 2005, 05:15 AM
There are like two "liberal" judges. They can't decide cases on their own.

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

No it doesn't at all, and I'll prove it to you in a way you will like:

Until about 1980/1990, the vast majority of people in the south were anti-black. They did not believe black people should have equal rights. It was in their best interests to keep black people suppressed, because giving them equal rights threatened white jobs and pride. Therefore, if we lived under a majority rules system, blacks would not have gotten equal civil rights. Thank god, we live in a republic, not a democracy. In a democracy, majority wins. In a republic, there is no tyrannical majority. Unfortunately, the liberal movement has been threatening the republican (with a small r) system for the past six decades at least, trying to move towards democracy. The tide is turning against them, but only because this country's wealth has increased rapidly, and people don't like paying taxes.

mboyle
Jun 24th, 2005, 05:16 AM
oh and there are, by my count, three liberal judges, two fairly liberal judges, and four conservative judges. Once O'Connor finally retires, we'll have a solid conservative court.

ys
Jun 24th, 2005, 05:30 AM
thank god communists like you are considered fools by the majority of the public. Communism has failed miserably everywhere it has been tried. Get over it.

I am not a communist. And you are just a young fool who was brainwashed, placed into his shell by his environment, learnt few dumb cliches and thinks it is all he needs to know.

Everything the government does, it does badly and worse than private enterprises. The one exception is the military, and that is only because fighting for money equals constant, total war without morals and with no objective.

Wrong. Healthcare. Which country do you think has a better healthcare system? Private healthcare system of USA or government-controlled healthcare system of France or Germany. Environment. Where have you ever seen a private enterprise that gives a fuck about environmental issues and issues of sustainability? Fundamental science. Basic education. Natural monopolies. A lot of things.

As to the private property for land, I think that with growing population all limited resources - such as land and water should be made a public property. Long-term rent? Fine. But not a property that can be inherited.

deja_entendu
Jun 24th, 2005, 07:58 AM
Liberal tyranny once again. I can't WAIT until 2006 when the stupidcrats will lose another 5 or ten seets in the senate. .

:drink:

You seem a lot smarter when you don't post.

Wigglytuff
Jun 24th, 2005, 02:45 PM
oh you anti liberal idiots.

first of all if you knew anything about the party line you would that most party line liberals would be opposed to this because this is clearly a racist and classist decision, that as the article said will unjustly affect the poor.

secondly, not everyone agrees with the party line.

thirdly, you unwavering idiots there are only 4 "liberal" justices, so the fifth justice tips the scale. but since it doesnt help your point you pretend that justice does not exist. witty.

finally, this decision will not and can not stand the test of time. its the second worst decision to come from that group of 9, and unlike the first, this one can and will be challenged in time.

Wigglytuff
Jun 24th, 2005, 02:49 PM
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.:woohoo: :bigclap: Then, we'll get real judges in the supreme court. Bring on the conservative era, baby:rocker2: .

:lol: :lol: :lol: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :retard: :smash: :smash:

Wigglytuff
Jun 24th, 2005, 02:54 PM
You are the idiot her jiggy poof. Still discussing your golden showers or whatever that means. :lol:
:retard: :smash: :smash:

Helen Lawson
Jun 24th, 2005, 03:34 PM
Let Helen share a story that cuts across party lines. About 15 years ago, I owned this nice estate-type propery in Greenwich, CT. It was great and I loved it. Floyd bought it for me for the 52nd birthday. I didn't have any mortgage on it. But I hardly was ever there. The upkeep, property taxes and the like ran a little over $100,000 per month, however. That's a lot of cigarette ads in Japan and Lifetime TV movies! The appraised fair market value was like $9.5 million. That was the unbiased, third-party appraisal. So, Helen lists it at $10 million.

But the percentage of the public who can afford a $10 million home isn't a lot. Damn thing sat on the market for THREE YEARS! And, yes, that $100K per month was hemmoraging out during that time. Helen was having to go to Japan every other month to do ads!! Well, it finally sold for about $8 million and the hemmoraging of cash ever month stopped.

I would have killed to have had the government come in and "take" the property for a mall or parking lot or whatever!! They have to pay you the fair market value. And let's get real, as much as people love their homes, money solves all your problems and you can always find another home with the dough!

Lord Nelson
Jul 2nd, 2005, 03:59 PM
Private property is not a sacred cow. Especially privately owned land. We need a consitutional amendment that would make all land a public property. :)
Ok then what are you waiting for, turn your private property public. By the way, France & Germany are in terrible financial state. Also U.S. which by far has a higher population like close to 300 million still has a much higher standard of living then France (62 milion) and Germany (80 million).

mboyle
Jul 3rd, 2005, 01:29 AM
party line liberals

There is no Liberal Party in the US. Thanks, have a great day.

Meesh
Jul 3rd, 2005, 01:53 AM
I can't believe this one went through...
So there is a big trailer park on this lake in Central Florida... there are already many McMansions on this lake. The trailers are a big eye sore for the people living along the lake. So all a builder needs to do is show that they can create more tax $$ by building a mall , restaurant???

I can't find the article but isn't one of the judges or supporters of this law having their home taken away for a Bed and Breakfast? Anyone know about that? I heard it on some news show and didn't catch it all.

Wannabeknowitall
Jul 3rd, 2005, 04:20 AM
I think this really was a part in O' Connor deciding to leave the Supreme Court. Her dissent paragraph seemed to me like she couldn't play apart of the partisan bullshyt anymore.