Guest_ikonboard Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Court: Cities Can Seize HomesWASHINGTON, June 23, 2005 A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights. "This is going to be a heartbreaking ruling for the tight-knit group of New London, Conn., neighbors who've been waging this fight," reports CBS News Correspondent Barry Bagnato. "They saw it as a crusade, a line in the sand battle to protect the property rights of everyday Americans. But for local governments, this is a brand new bank account." The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for 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 now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue. 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. Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting. "It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word." Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result." Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he 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," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. "It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," he said. 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." "We're pleased," attorney Edward O'Connell, who represents New London Development Corporation, said in response to the ruling. 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. Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners. New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs. The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years. City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum. New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway. Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_ikonboard Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 This is a government for the people by the people?? Excuse me for a sec while I fuckin hurl... The United Sates government no longer exists to serve the people it governs. It has become a parasite on society. Revolution is inevitable it is only a question of when... Fuck the fuckin fucktards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Funny how the history lesson went from whaling to urban decay without mentioning that New London reeled in the big bucks when Bank Street was biker bars, massage parlors and street corner talking. It was fuggin SRO downtown until the city fathers decided on gentrification. Now sagebrush rolls down Bank Street so in a continuing effort to deny human nature, they are resorting to displacing the last caucasions that didn't get their white flight tickets punched during the nineties. They had a town full of Navy and Coast guard, merchant marines, shipyard rats, and the list goes on of paychecks that went to all sorts of fun extracurricular activities. It was this man's Disneyland and now they got themselves a right proper godfearing upstanding ghosttown. Ya reaps what ya sows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Last Indian Rider Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 That is sad!! What our Gov is doing to these people just so a buisness can build on their site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefin Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Its all about the $ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanChief Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 ....what, and everyone is surprised about the constant trampling of individual rights by our government? Just remember, this is what socialist regimes do. this is what communist/fascist regimes do when it's justified "for the good of the people" and everyone agrees until the government comes for their house. Horrible stuff we deal with, but as long as you all continue to vote along the party line, and vote for bigger government it's only gonna get worse until it's too late. I guarantee you we're on our way to a socialist environment. Just don't blame me..I voted Libertarian. I vote for the individual, not the collective. the greater good is subjective, and ultimately means someone will be a sacrificial lamb. Who will it be today?..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bb5703 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 REMEMBER AND SEE WHO EXACTLY VOTED TO STRIP THOSE PEOPLES RIGHTS FROM THEM. IT WAS THE LIBERAL JUDGES ON THE SUPREME COURT. WE ALL BETTER SPEAK UP WHEN PRES. BUSH NOMINATES JUDGES AGAIN , WHETHER FOR THE SUPREME COURT OR FEDERAL COURTS. LIBERALISM IS THE SAME DAMN THING AS SOCIALISM. SO BEWARE BROTHERS AND SISTERS. ITS NOT WHAT PARTY YOU BELONG, ITS GOES WAY BEYOND THAT NOW. ITS ABOUT OUR FREEDOMS AS AMERICANS MY 2 CENTS: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiritquest Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 REMEMBER AND SEE WHO EXACTLY VOTED TO STRIP THOSE PEOPLES RIGHTS FROM THEM. IT WAS THE LIBERAL JUDGES ON THE SUPREME COURT. WE ALL BETTER SPEAK UP WHEN PRES. BUSH NOMINATES JUDGES AGAIN , WHETHER FOR THE SUPREME COURT OR FEDERAL COURTS. LIBERALISM IS THE SAME DAMN THING AS SOCIALISM. SO BEWARE BROTHERS AND SISTERS. ITS NOT WHAT PARTY YOU BELONG, ITS GOES WAY BEYOND THAT NOW. ITS ABOUT OUR FREEDOMS AS AMERICANS MY 2 CENTS: I Could not have said it any better. Although I don't trust any of them. Its the all important $$$$$$$$$$$$$ that maters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallRider Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Mike . . . I'll plead ignorance here . . . but it would be interesting to list the members of the Supreme Court, how they voted on this case, what their political affiliation is or under whose administration they were appointed, and whether they ride Chiefs, Spirits, Scouts, or HDs? Seems to me that even conservative judges can render unpopular decisions and vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maninbox Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 The Supreme Court is very much a conservative dominated court, therefore, it is incorrect to say that a liberal court carried this decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 The Supreme Court is very much a conservative dominated court, therefore, it is incorrect to say that a liberal court carried this decision. Stephen G. Breyer Overview Born: August 15, 1938 Party: Democrat Time served: 10 years, 10 months, 20 days Position: associate Justice Nominated by: Clinton Commissioned: August 2, 1994 Sworn in: August 3, 1994 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Overview Born: March 15, 1933 Party: Democrat Time served: 11 years, 10 months, 13 days Position: associate Justice Nominated by: Clinton Commissioned: August 5, 1993 Sworn in: August 10, 1993 Overview Born: June 23, 1948 Party: Republican Time served: 13 years, 8 months, 0 days Position: associate Justice Nominated by: Bush Commissioned: October 16, 1991 Sworn in: October 23, 1991 David H. Souter Overview Born: September 17, 1939 Party: Republican Time served: 14 years, 8 months, 14 days Position: associate Justice Nominated by: Bush Commissioned: October 3, 1990 Sworn in: October 9, 1990 Anthony Kennedy Overview Born: July 23, 1936 Party: Republican Time served: 17 years, 4 months, 5 days Position: associate Justice Nominated by: Reagan Commissioned: February 11, 1988 Sworn in: February 18, 1988 William H. Rehnquist Overview Born: October 1, 1924 Party: Republican Time served: 33 years, 5 months, 16 days Position: associate Justice Nominated by: Nixon Commissioned: December 15, 1971 Sworn in: January 7, 1972 Left Office: September 26, 1986 Reason for leaving: Promoted Previous (In Seat) Next (In Seat) Position: chief Justice Nominated by: Reagan Commissioned: September 25, 1986 Sworn in: September 26, 1986 Antonin Scalia Overview Born: March 11, 1936 Party: Republican Time served: 18 years, 8 months, 27 days Position: associate Justice Nominated by: Reagan Commissioned: September 25, 1986 Sworn in: September 26, 1986 Sandra Day O'Connor Overview Born: March 26, 1930 Party: Republican Time served: 23 years, 8 months, 28 days Position: associate Justice Nominated by: Reagan Commissioned: September 22, 1981 Sworn in: September 25, 1981 John Paul Stevens Overview Born: April 20, 1920 Party: Republican Time served: 29 years, 6 months, 4 days Position: associate Justice Nominated by: Ford Commissioned: December 17, 1975 Sworn in: December 19, 1975 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Gee, two nominated to the bench by a democrat, the rest by reps, four of them by that dangerous socialist hippie commie Ron Reagan. Well whaddaya know? Whoda thunk? Damn buncha liberal activist judges. Mommy, I'm commie skeered. Boo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_ikonboard Posted June 24, 2005 Author Share Posted June 24, 2005 Gee, two nominated to the bench by a democrat, the rest by reps, four of them by that dangerous socialist hippie commie Ron Reagan. Well whaddaya know? Whoda thunk? Damn buncha liberal activist judges. Mommy, I'm commie skeered. Boo. It's very misleading to go off of who put them on the court or their supposed party affiliaton. You want to know if they have a conservative or liberal slant, read their opinions. David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Stephen Breyer are considered by most to be the liberal bloc on the court. William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas are the three conservatives. Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O Connor, who were both appointed by Reagan, have become more and more liberal over time. But are still considered by many as moderates, very few would call these two conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_ikonboard Posted June 24, 2005 Author Share Posted June 24, 2005 Mike . . . I'll plead ignorance here . . . but it would be interesting to list the members of the Supreme Court, how they voted on this case, what their political affiliation is or under whose administration they were appointed, and whether they ride Chiefs, Spirits, Scouts, or HDs? Seems to me that even conservative judges can render unpopular decisions and vice versa. Steven delivered the opinion of the Court. Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer joined. Kennedy filed concurring opinion. O’Connor filed a dissenting opinion. Rehnquist, Scallia and Thomas joined. Thomas also filed a dissenting opinion. Kelo v. New London The popularity of an opinion is irrelevant to me. There is a danger with the Court expanding its powers. Our Republic was set up with a balance of powers to keep our officials in check. We are losing the system of checks and balances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whadayawant Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 How liberal can th' son-of-a-bitches be? They voted to squash medical marajuana, which is supported by 70% of Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XUXAW Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 From the Federal Reserve Banking System to YOUR President Bush's secret police, the United States is quickly changing from the "land of the free" to one more military state, little different from those the world has seen throughout history. Time to abolish the federal government, and give the country back to the people... Revolution is the only solution! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Misleading isn't the term I would use. Indicative of their temperamant, I could have gone with that or maybe relative to their personal convictions would have worked but I would save misleading for using the term liberal to describe the members of the high court. Because rulings do not reflect the social bent of the few or the many doesn't make the judiciary liberal, conservative or moderate. Rulings supported by primary case history or relative case history, rulings that do not break with the Constitution, rulings that have been framed to not break with the tradition of American jurisprudence, these are the fabric of the republic, and as much as I abhor the taking of property in New London, and soon elsewhere, the decision of the court meets those standards. As a matter of fact, it reinforces state's rights which are declining under the pressure of the centralized federal administration. Connecticut, and the local New London gummint is to blame for the unconscionable taking of property from those people, not the court. The object lesson isn't radicalization of the Supreme Court, it's to take control of your state legislature and rid yourselves of empirical mandates that could put your homes forfeit. The oft cited liberalization of the court strikes me as a flatearth argument. The holy see swore up and down that the sun revolved around the earth. Turns out the sun was stable, the earth was in orbit. The evangelicals swear up and down that the court is becoming liberal activist. Extrapolate here. The judiciary is not tasked to do the will of men. The charter is to weigh. Often men are wrong. If men were right more than 50% of the time, judges would be out of work. Less than 50% of the time the judiciary is wrong. I'm laying my money on less wrong. When the courts bow to the will of the masses, that's when the republic ceases. That's when the checks and balances are yesterdays news. Anyway, I'm backing out of this. I know better than to let something as virtually unimportant as political banter prevent me from thinking about the bigger things like whether the Green Mountains are worth wearing a helmet (Vermont) on a 90 degree day or should I just stay on the NH side of the river. Come to think of it I think I'll stay in New Hampshire. Now that's indicative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiremanDave Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 This ain't exactly new around my part of the Lone Star State, over twenty homes were razed a couple of years ago for a shopping center parking lot, lots of folks had to move for TMS, The Ballpark in Arlington, and no doubt will do the same for the new Cowboy Stadium in Arlington. Oh and with the last two issues after a brief time the centers are given to the owners of the teams, even though a large part of tax payer money was and will be spent to finance them. Now for medical marijauna use, I guess on this issue, I'm one of them liberal Hippies, if you got a medical condition that some thing, (and I don't care what it is ) helps. Either with the pain or the other symptoms than hell yes you should be able to use it. I think the problem with this issue is that too many folks know how to properly grow marijauna, for it to be a cash cow to the pharmacy groups or to the goverment in tax revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_ikonboard Posted June 24, 2005 Author Share Posted June 24, 2005 How liberal can th' son-of-a-bitches be? They voted to squash medical marajuana, which is supported by 70% of Americans. "medical marijuana" opinion. Stevens wrote the majority opinion. Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer joined. Scalia filed an opinion concurring. O'Conner files the desenting opinion with Thomas and Rehnquist joining. Thomas filed a disenting opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whadayawant Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 If empty words were dollars, th' supremes could pay off th' national debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maninbox Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Perhaps Last Resort fears a liberal Supreme Court but I do not. I fear a conservative court who may suppress my rights as a citizen and taxpayer in favor of the supporting corporate infastructure which so heavily dependant on the Republican political machine and their conservative supporters. If that makes me a liberal, then there you have it. Don't get me started... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 ....what, and everyone is surprised about the constant trampling of individual rights by our government? Just remember, this is what socialist regimes do. Just for the record, Canada is officially a 'social democracy' and so falls under the socialist heading for some. Nothing like this has ever happened here to my knowledge. You talk about how it's socialist and communist governments taking land, but there's a serious flaw in that line of thought. Communist theory does not recognize private property - everything belongs to the state, including your business. So, if they 'take' your land, it's not going to a wealthy developer, it's going to the state. Socialism recognizes private property but believes that taxing everyone into poverty so we're all equally poor, except those in power, is the path to greater society. They won't expropriate your private property for a private developer (or other private interest), but if they can take it for public-use projects and then sell those public use projects to retired politicians, they will. It's the capitalist government that takes private property and hands it over to their wealthy friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Misleading isn't the term I would use. Indicative of their temperamant, I could have gone with that or maybe relative to their personal convictions would have worked but I would save misleading for using the term liberal to describe the members of the high court. Because rulings do not reflect the social bent of the few or the many doesn't make the judiciary liberal, conservative or moderate. Rulings supported by primary case history or relative case history, rulings that do not break with the Constitution, rulings that have been framed to not break with the tradition of American jurisprudence, these are the fabric of the republic, and as much as I abhor the taking of property in New London, and soon elsewhere, the decision of the court meets those standards. As a matter of fact, it reinforces state's rights which are declining under the pressure of the centralized federal administration. Connecticut, and the local New London gummint is to blame for the unconscionable taking of property from those people, not the court. The object lesson isn't radicalization of the Supreme Court, it's to take control of your state legislature and rid yourselves of empirical mandates that could put your homes forfeit. The oft cited liberalization of the court strikes me as a flatearth argument. The holy see swore up and down that the sun revolved around the earth. Turns out the sun was stable, the earth was in orbit. The evangelicals swear up and down that the court is becoming liberal activist. Extrapolate here. The judiciary is not tasked to do the will of men. The charter is to weigh. Often men are wrong. If men were right more than 50% of the time, judges would be out of work. Less than 50% of the time the judiciary is wrong. I'm laying my money on less wrong. When the courts bow to the will of the masses, that's when the republic ceases. That's when the checks and balances are yesterdays news. Anyway, I'm backing out of this. I know better than to let something as virtually unimportant as political banter prevent me from thinking about the bigger things like whether the Green Mountains are worth wearing a helmet (Vermont) on a 90 degree day or should I just stay on the NH side of the river. Come to think of it I think I'll stay in New Hampshire. Now that's indicative. You Da man Pop.. Spoken much more eloquently than I could ever hope to.. (Hell I cant even spell eloquently without help..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porkchop Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 ....what, and everyone is surprised about the constant trampling of individual rights by our government? Just remember, this is what socialist regimes do. Just for the record, Canada is officially a 'social democracy' and so falls under the socialist heading for some. Nothing like this has ever happened here to my knowledge. You talk about how it's socialist and communist governments taking land, but there's a serious flaw in that line of thought. Communist theory does not recognize private property - everything belongs to the state, including your business. So, if they 'take' your land, it's not going to a wealthy developer, it's going to the state. Socialism recognizes private property but believes that taxing everyone into poverty so we're all equally poor, except those in power, is the path to greater society. They won't expropriate your private property for a private developer (or other private interest), but if they can take it for public-use projects and then sell those public use projects to retired politicians, they will. It's the capitalist government that takes private property and hands it over to their wealthy friends. Who cares.Your government is just an experiment of ours.We already OWN Canada. Thats why we should annex you. And start makin YOU pay taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanChief Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Gee, two nominated to the bench by a democrat, the rest by reps, four of them by that dangerous socialist hippie commie Ron Reagan. Well whaddaya know? Whoda thunk? Damn buncha liberal activist judges. Mommy, I'm commie skeered. Boo. It's very misleading to go off of who put them on the court or their supposed party affiliaton. You want to know if they have a conservative or liberal slant, read their opinions. David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Stephen Breyer are considered by most to be the liberal bloc on the court. William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas are the three conservatives. Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O Connor, who were both appointed by Reagan, have become more and more liberal over time. But are still considered by many as moderates, very few would call these two conservative. Yes, but wasn't O'Connor the dissenting vote? If so, Kudos for her! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.