Will Court Curb Eminent Domain? (Feb 2005 Editorial!!!)

The Boston Globe ^ | February 27, 2005 | Jeff Jacoby

[andie74]

BEGINNING his oral argument in Kelo v. City of New London, the Connecticut eminent-domain case the Supreme Court took up last week, Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice puts the stakes bluntly:

‘‘Every home, church, or corner store would produce more jobs and tax revenue if it were a Costco or a shopping mall,’’ he says. If state and local governments can force a property owner to surrender his land so it can be given to a new owner who will put it to more lucrative use, no home or shop in America will ever be safe again.

That’s just what New London wants to do to Bullock’s clients, the last remaining homeowners in the city’s working-class section of Fort Trumbull. When Pfizer, the big pharmaceutical firm, announced in 1998 that it would build a $300 million research facility nearby, the city decided to raze Fort Trumbull’s modest homes and shops so they could be replaced with more expensive properties: offices, upscale condos, a luxury hotel.

But can the government kick people out of their homes or businesses simply to make way for new development?

Under the Bill of Rights, the power of eminent domain may be used only when land is needed for a public use. ‘‘Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation,’’ the Fifth Amendment commands. A school, a post office, a right of way for a railroad — those are the kinds of public uses for which property owners have traditionally been made to relinquish their land.

[andie74]

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor presses Wesley Horton, the lawyer for New London, on whether eminent domain can really be deployed to condemn any property that could be put to better use.

‘‘For example, a Motel 6,’’ O’Connor says. ‘‘A city thinks, ‘If we had a Ritz-Carlton, we’d get higher taxes.’ Is that OK?’’

‘‘Yes, that’s OK,’’ Horton replies.

Justice Antonin Scalia: ‘‘You can take from A and give it to B, if B pays more in taxes?’’

Horton: ‘‘Yes, if it’s a significant amount.’’

Note the date published on this...some great case law cited. Read it and literally weep.

[EagleUSA]

Note the date published on this...some great case law cited. Read it and literally weep.
-----
It is beyond tragic. The socialist mentality that has prevailed due to the socialists that sit on SCOTUS, is a mortal wound to Constitutional liberty and freedoms of ownership. This is just to incredible to even believe --- the left is out of it f-ing mind!!!!

[Criminal Number 18F]

Jeff's conclusion: The question now is whether five Supreme Court justices will agree to kill off this piece of the Bill of Rights for good, or to bring it back to life.

Well, we know now what they did. Good Christ, what a bad decision. And Souter the swing guy -- great move, Poppy Bush. And junior wants to put squishes like Al Gonzalez on SCOTUS. This is a decision that Lord North and George III would seek.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Cboldt]

* bump *

Good cites and old speculation

[Racehorse]

If cities exploit this decision, which they will, expect violence. Somebody will eventually get hurt.

People will generally suck it up and accept tough calls, but this was not a tough call.

[Cboldt]

I don't expect violence. But it is prudent to be prepared in case violence surfaces.

[Publius6961]

For the last few years I have been thinking "civil war"...
Decisions like this one firmly pushes probability back to the "insurrection" side. It's definitely not going to be humorous when planners, assessors and other bureaucrats need to drive to work with bodyguards and armored cars. Just like most banana republics.

When rights, so plainly written are twisted into meaninglessness, it's not reasonable to expect any other result in a country that was born out of relentless dedication to individual rights and limited government.

Time, once more, to examine and analyze, very carefully, the nuances of the classic fascist state.

[TheOtherOne]

FULL TEXT PDF OF ORAL ARGUMENTS IN KELO V. NEW LONDON

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-108.pdf

[Racehorse]

For the last few years I have been thinking "civil war"...

I don't see anything like a Civil War.

I'm thinking more of individual rage.

Here in Texas we take land and property rights very, very seriously.

[KarlInOhio]

How long will it take the Supreme Court to say that on a strictly utilitarian basis, your organs could save the lives of 5 people so they have a right to kill you to take them?

Also, would it be wrong for the person thrown off his property to dump a bucket of dioxin (or similar chemical on the EPA bad list) on his former property as a going away gift? One anonymous call to the EPA and suddenly all development has to be shut down and the new owner has thousands of dollars of clean up.

[L.N. Smithee]

There is only one bright side to this travesty: Those who thought talk of an out-of-control judiciary was reactionary nonsense and distraction from Tom DeLay's controversies will get a cold slap in the face IF (and it's a big IF) the GOP can forcefully articulate why every American has suddenly lost a right that they took for granted due to the very judicial activism they've been warning about for years.

Schumer, Leahy, Durbin and Boxer's attempts to skewer qualified nominees based on their protection of all things abortion will fail; the confiscation of the American Dream itself trumps Roe vs. Wade.

[L.N. Smithee]

(Bork should have had Kennedy's USSC seat and Kelo v. New London would have gone the other way.)

Excellent tagline!

[Hank Rearden]

I don't expect violence.

Why not? How much more would you think people everywhere will take from Big Stupid Government? At what point would you stand and fight?

I'm not waiting to board the train to the camps to get mad, that's for damn sure. We saw how that worked out last time.

[Lurker]

This decision is going to be the straw that breaks the camels back my friend.

Mark my words.

L

[Cboldt]

I suppose there is nuance to "expecting" violence. What I said before was,

"it is prudent to be prepared in case violence surfaces."

Surely, prudence can be argued as "expectation," but just the same, I don't expect violence.

[clee1]

Violence is guaranteed. Revolution is at hand.

[Hank Rearden]

This decision is going to be the straw that breaks the camels back my friend. Mark my words.

Yes. People will die over this one; we'll see how far it goes.

[Hank Rearden]

I do see your point, and think I got it the first time - your post was well written.

That being said, I do expect it. This one's big, and very stupid even for Big Stupid Government.

[Lurker]

Let's just hope it's the right people who do the dying.

I can think of five right off the bat.

L

[montag813]

And Souter the swing guy -- great move, Poppy Bush

I blame Anthony Kennedy, who has emerged as the unexpected villain of the Court. One wonders what "international law" he, Ginsburg et al used for inspiration to seize property...Mugabe's Zimbabwe?