Posted on 06/25/2005 4:09:02 AM PDT by PAMadMax
My take on this ruling? No one's property is now safe. Did you notice who dissented in the 5-4 decision? Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas and O'Connor. Yes, that is right. Those big, bad stick-it-to-the-little-guy conservatives came down on the side of property rights guaranteed in the consitution, unlike the rest of the black-robed idiots who sided with an egregious interpretation of the Fifth Amendment. Those of you who may decide that, for whatever reason you choose, your property is not for sale will find your ass out on the street when some deep-pocketed developer lays the "increased tax revenue and jobs" line on city, borough or township government. Now, there is NO recourse. Or is there? Revolutions have been fought over seizure of private property (IE quartering of troops in the American Revolutionary War) by government. It would not be contraindicated in this case as the government is taking your property to enrich someone else while skimming off a chunk of change yearly in tax revenue.
How much longer can a people tolerate the abuse of power on all levels of government? Seizure of property, violation of religious freedom (of course, only in the case of those annoying christians), illegal taxation, dumbing down of our educational system, selling out to the highest bidder (corporate and special interest lobbies), greivous dissolution of rights in such wonderful legislation as the Patriot Act (Republicans, even GW get no pass here) and many other greivances. That's right, America. Sit on your collective ass in front of the television and watch the next loser get voted off Survivor while everything this nation has stood upon and stands for gets pissed down the drain. We will most surely have the government we deserve if we continue to do nothing.
I wouldn't say the Homeowners in New London did nothing. They tried everything within the law to stop this atrocity.
It's just that in this case, the law was DEFINITELY an ass.
True enough. Now, people have to decide: Do I fight? What is the remedy? The Supreme Court has just rewritten the Fifth Amendment, effectively legislating constitutional change from the bench. Now what do we do? Fight it in the senate and house? I am sorry but my optimism has long since disappeared on matters such as these. People will not rise and fight, they are just way too timid and weak, whatever form the fight against tyranny may take. Sad.
To a degree this is a phoney evaluation since the occupants of residential property probably also have jobs and pay INCOME TAX, and there is no doubt they pay SALES TAX, and PROPERTY TAX.
Because they are not businesses there's no depreciation to discount against the payment of taxes.
A proper accounting of the project in Connecticut would undoubtedly reveal that the new development is a major loser and will actually require a serious taxpayer subsidy.
Gee whiz, this begins to look more and more like the kind of fraudulent accounting practices indulged in by Global Crossing, Worldcom, Enron, and so forth. And look at our "victims" who were fooled ~ the world's second smartest woman, the invincible Justice Ginsburg, the world's smartest gay guy, Justice Souter, and the other three usual suspects in these cases.
Speaking of which, I have some insurance policies to sell ~ time to knock on some doors. Now where'd I put Justice Kennedy's address?
She cited several instances when the logic of foreign courts had helped untangle legal questions domestically, and of legislatures and courts abroad adopting U.S. law in return. Fears about relying too heavily on world opinion "should not lead us to abandon the effort to learn what we can from the experience and good thinking foreign sources may convey," Ginsburg told the audience.
On March 1, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Constitution forbids executing convicts who committed their crimes before turning 18. The majority opinion reasoned that the United States was increasingly out of step with the world by allowing minors to be executed, saying "the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty." Antonin Scalia lambasted that logic, saying that the justices personal opinion and the opinions of "like-minded foreigners" should not be given a role in helping interpret the Constitution.
House Republicans have introduced a resolution declaring that the "meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States." In her speech, Ginsburg criticized the resolutions in Congress and the spirit in which they were written. "Although I doubt the resolutions will pass this Congress, it is disquieting that they have attracted sizable support," she said. "The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification," Ginsburg said. "Even more so today, the United States is subject to the scrutiny of a candid world," she said. "What the United States does, for good or for ill, continues to be watched by the international community, in particular by organizations concerned with the advancement of the rule of law and respect for human dignity."
Objecters contend that defining law and viewing the opinions of foriegners is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary. The judiciary should be limited to looking at the US Constitution for their decision.
More recently, she sided with the majority in declaring that municipalities in the US may legitimately use eminent domain to seize private homes for strictly commercial development and profit by private corporations
This is what the Socialist want for a Supreme Court in America and since most of the Democratic Congress are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, that is what that party has become - Socialists.
Norman Thomas, six-time Socialist Party presidential candidate and one of the founders of the ACLU
Justice Ginsburg is a Socialist - not a liberal - but a Socialist. This is what Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the rest of the socialist Senators and Representatives would like to see on the Supreme Court......Hillary is a strong supporter of Ms. Ginsberg, neither have any use for the United States Constitution.
Menino got the memo, form today's Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/06/25/menino_threatens_fan_pier_permits/
''Why can't we develop anything? Why can't it move forward? What is the problem?" Menino said in an interview. ''I think they are procrastinating. They are saying, 'Someday when we are ready.' It is not when they are ready. It is about the city -- jobs, housing, and revenue."
The dumbed-down USA citizenry is incapable of learning the virtue--the duty--of Civil Disobedience, the effectiveness of the General Strike, and the persuasive value of pitchforks and torches.
Ergo, hand-wringing availeth naught.
If nothing changes, nothing changes.
Believe this: the sloppy-thinking USA voter-eligibles are not up to the task of defeating the tyrannical left in the Supreme Legislature. And in the Senate and House of Misrepresentatives, the impeachment process was killed by the Klintonistas and Daschle.
***
New Zealand...... this country is dead. With all the SPINELESS B*STARDS in the Congress saying little or nothing about this absurd decision....... this country is dead.
Yeh guys, let China have the oil company too.
I believe that the Congress can pass legislation that will counter this absurdity? Unfortunately, I fear there are a higher percentage of socialists in Congress than on the SCOTUS.
ping
Oh come on. This decision is the best thing since sliced bread. Wealthy folks can get the city to wipe out crackheaded welfare cheat neighborhoods, give them the land to develop lovely condos and office parks on. And we can blame the liberals on the Spreme Court for it. Smells like a big WIN-WIN to me.
Until it is a plot of land in which your home, business or farm is included.....
From NRO The Corner:
"From a reader:
Jonah,
The quickest way to reverse Kelo is to find some conservative town in Utah somewhere to shut down an abortion clinic in order to make room for a Wal-Mart. Also, that would be the most fun way to get Kelo reversed."
This was in George Will's Column:
In a tart dissent, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas, noted that the consequences of this decision “will not be random.” She says it is “likely” — a considerable understatement — that the beneficiaries of the decision will be people “with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”
Those on the receiving end of the life-shattering power that the court has validated will almost always be individuals of modest means. So this liberal decision — it augments government power to aggrandize itself by bulldozing individuals’ interests — favors muscular economic battalions at the expense of society’s little platoons.
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=56726
So it still looks like good times to me. City councilment can't be all that expensive if I need to save my house or business.
I like it...
Hit and Run.com has a similar idea--Turn your property into an abortion clinic even if the stirrups clash with the dinette, it will be inviolate.. http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/
All kidding aside, this ruling stinks to high heaven and turns the clause in the 5th Amendment from "public use" to "public benefit". The only thing that would be a sure-fire counter to this is a constitutional amendment. In order to protect the Constitution from mad mood swings of the people and the legislative branch, amending it takes on a glacial pace.
All kidding aside, this ruling stinks to high heaven and turns the clause in the 5th Amendment from "public use" to "public benefit". The only thing that would be a sure-fire counter to this is a constitutional amendment. In order to protect the Constitution from mad mood swings of the people and the legislative branch, amending it takes on a glacial pace.
I couldn't agree more, but, the state legislatures represent the best chance to negate this hideous ruling by the Robert Mugabes of the Supreme Court more quickly. State constitutions, being easier to amend, should be amended to prohibit use of eminent domain for private entities or for tax revenue enhancement. Like in Virginia, eminent domain is widely despised here in Georgia, so I think there is a great opportunity to make changes to make use of eminent domain a lot more difficult. Write to your STATE legislators! I am doing this now, even though the Georgia General Assembly doesn't convene until January 2006.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.