USA Supreme Court Basically Tells Property Owners: "F*** You!" - TennisForum.com
TennisForum.com   Wagerline.com MensTennisForums.com TennisUniverse.com
TennisForum.com is the premier Women's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!
Reply

Old Jun 23rd, 2005, 08:04 PM   #1
country flag SelesFan70
Senior Member
 
SelesFan70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 11,182
SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute
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 View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old Jun 23rd, 2005, 08:05 PM   #2
country flag Sally Struthers
Senior Member
 
Sally Struthers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UnattractiveOn the inside
Posts: 10,842
Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute
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 View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23rd, 2005, 08:08 PM   #3
country flag SelesFan70
Senior Member
 
SelesFan70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 11,182
SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute
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 View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23rd, 2005, 08:26 PM   #4
country flag alexusjonesfan
Senior Member
 
alexusjonesfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: inside
Posts: 7,851
alexusjonesfan has a brilliant future alexusjonesfan has a brilliant future alexusjonesfan has a brilliant future alexusjonesfan has a brilliant future alexusjonesfan has a brilliant future alexusjonesfan has a brilliant future alexusjonesfan has a brilliant future alexusjonesfan has a brilliant future alexusjonesfan has a brilliant future alexusjonesfan has a brilliant future alexusjonesfan has a brilliant future
how outrages, hang them by testicles etc. mad
alexusjonesfan is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23rd, 2005, 10:32 PM   #5
country flag Sally Struthers
Senior Member
 
Sally Struthers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UnattractiveOn the inside
Posts: 10,842
Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute Sally Struthers has a reputation beyond repute
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 View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24th, 2005, 12:21 AM   #6
Pureracket
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: florida
Posts: 23,446
Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute
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 View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24th, 2005, 12:25 AM   #7
Cybelle Darkholme
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 7,278
Cybelle Darkholme has a brilliant future Cybelle Darkholme has a brilliant future Cybelle Darkholme has a brilliant future Cybelle Darkholme has a brilliant future Cybelle Darkholme has a brilliant future Cybelle Darkholme has a brilliant future Cybelle Darkholme has a brilliant future Cybelle Darkholme has a brilliant future Cybelle Darkholme has a brilliant future Cybelle Darkholme has a brilliant future Cybelle Darkholme has a brilliant future
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 View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24th, 2005, 12:28 AM   #8
Pureracket
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: florida
Posts: 23,446
Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute Pureracket has a reputation beyond repute
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 View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24th, 2005, 02:15 AM   #9
country flag ys
Adrenaline junkie
 
ys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: always on the move
Posts: 21,028
ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute
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."

"the words “insane” and “insane person” and “lunatic” shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis" 1 U.S.C. §1

PLAY TENNIS!
ys is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24th, 2005, 02:44 AM   #10
country flag mboyle
Senior Member
 
mboyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,527
mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute
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 View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24th, 2005, 02:46 AM   #11
country flag mboyle
Senior Member
 
mboyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,527
mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute
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 View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24th, 2005, 02:53 AM   #12
country flag SelesFan70
Senior Member
 
SelesFan70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 11,182
SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute SelesFan70 has a reputation beyond repute
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 View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24th, 2005, 02:56 AM   #13
country flag mboyle
Senior Member
 
mboyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,527
mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute
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 View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24th, 2005, 03:00 AM   #14
country flag mboyle
Senior Member
 
mboyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,527
mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute mboyle has a reputation beyond repute
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 View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24th, 2005, 03:10 AM   #15
country flag ys
Adrenaline junkie
 
ys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: always on the move
Posts: 21,028
ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute ys has a reputation beyond repute
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."

"the words “insane” and “insane person” and “lunatic” shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis" 1 U.S.C. §1

PLAY TENNIS!
ys is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios