Skip to comments.
Will Court Curb Eminent Domain? (Feb 2005 Editorial!!!)
The Boston Globe ^
| February 27, 2005
| Jeff Jacoby
Posted on 06/23/2005 7:56:36 PM PDT by andie74
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
Justice Sandra Day OConnor 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, OConnor says. A city thinks, If we had a Ritz-Carlton, wed get higher taxes. Is that OK?
Yes, thats 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 its a significant amount.
Note the date published on this...some great case law cited. Read it and literally weep.
1
posted on
06/23/2005 7:56:37 PM PDT
by
andie74
To: andie74
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!!!!
2
posted on
06/23/2005 8:01:37 PM PDT
by
EagleUSA
To: andie74
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
3
posted on
06/23/2005 8:03:47 PM PDT
by
Criminal Number 18F
(If timidity made you safe, Bambi would be king of the jungle.)
To: andie74
* bump *
Good cites and old speculation
4
posted on
06/23/2005 8:13:43 PM PDT
by
Cboldt
To: Cboldt
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.
5
posted on
06/23/2005 8:18:19 PM PDT
by
Racehorse
(Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
To: Racehorse
I don't expect violence. But it is prudent to be prepared in case violence surfaces.
6
posted on
06/23/2005 8:26:04 PM PDT
by
Cboldt
To: Racehorse
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.
7
posted on
06/23/2005 8:31:37 PM PDT
by
Publius6961
(The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
To: andie74; All
8
posted on
06/23/2005 8:32:12 PM PDT
by
TheOtherOne
(I often sacrifice my spelling on the alter of speed™)
To: Publius6961
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.
9
posted on
06/23/2005 9:11:17 PM PDT
by
Racehorse
(Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
To: andie74
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.
10
posted on
06/23/2005 9:31:44 PM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(Bork should have had Kennedy's USSC seat and Kelo v. New London would have gone the other way.)
To: andie74
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.
11
posted on
06/23/2005 10:04:54 PM PDT
by
L.N. Smithee
(Real Freepers Don't Need Witness Protection Programs)
To: KarlInOhio
(Bork should have had Kennedy's USSC seat and Kelo v. New London would have gone the other way.)Excellent tagline!
12
posted on
06/23/2005 10:06:11 PM PDT
by
L.N. Smithee
(Real Freepers Don't Need Witness Protection Programs)
To: Cboldt
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.
13
posted on
06/23/2005 10:07:55 PM PDT
by
Hank Rearden
(Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
To: Hank Rearden
This decision is going to be the straw that breaks the camels back my friend.
Mark my words.
L
14
posted on
06/23/2005 10:10:08 PM PDT
by
Lurker
(Remember the Beirut Bombing; 243 dead Marines. The House of Assad and Hezbollah did it..)
To: Hank Rearden
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.
15
posted on
06/23/2005 10:11:40 PM PDT
by
Cboldt
To: Cboldt
Violence is guaranteed. Revolution is at hand.
16
posted on
06/23/2005 10:17:02 PM PDT
by
clee1
(We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
To: Lurker
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.
17
posted on
06/23/2005 10:18:39 PM PDT
by
Hank Rearden
(Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
To: Cboldt
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.
18
posted on
06/23/2005 10:20:12 PM PDT
by
Hank Rearden
(Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
To: Hank Rearden
Let's just hope it's the right people who do the dying.
I can think of five right off the bat.
L
19
posted on
06/23/2005 10:23:21 PM PDT
by
Lurker
(Remember the Beirut Bombing; 243 dead Marines. The House of Assad and Hezbollah did it..)
To: Criminal Number 18F
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?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson