Kennedy's Vast Domain [Wallstreet Journal Editorial]

Wallstreet Journal ^ | June 24, 2005 | WSJ Editorial

[bwteim]

Kennedy's Vast Domain

June 24, 2005; Page A12

The Supreme Court's "liberal" wing has a reputation in some circles as a guardian of the little guy and a protector of civil liberties. That deserves reconsideration in light of yesterday's decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The Court's four liberals (Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg) combined with the protean Anthony Kennedy to rule that local governments have more or less unlimited authority to seize homes and businesses.

CUT CUT

So, in just two weeks, the Supreme Court has rendered two major decisions on the limits of government. In Raich v. Gonzales the Court said there are effectively no limits on what the federal government can do using the Commerce Clause as a justification. In Kelo, it's now ruled that there are effectively no limits on the predations of local governments against private property.

These kinds of judicial encroachments on liberty are precisely why Supreme Court nominations have become such high-stakes battles. If President Bush is truly the "strict constructionist" he professes to be, he will take note of the need to check this disturbing trend should he be presented with a High Court vacancy.

URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111957306808268311,00.html

[bwteim]

True. But it illustrates the last line of editorial:

"These kinds of judicial encroachments on liberty are precisely why Supreme Court nominations have become such high-stakes battles."

[bwteim]

"Susette Kelo, the owner of a house on East Street in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, fights back tears as she speaks on the phone to a supporter from the South, following the Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain that sided with the City of New London." http://www.theday.com/eng/web/

[oldironsides]

I really do not think anyone can imagine what chaos this decision could cause. Casino's , hotels, wealthy overseas investors and the like will be scouring neighborhoods for the perfect score. Office buildings replacing homes because the tax base is higher will uproute average people. They will all blame George W. Bush. Watch.

[sgtbono2002]

As the bulldozer operator tearing down the Kennedy compound I know you would stop if Fat Ted decided to pull a Rachel Corrie and stand in front of that bulldozer.

[sgtbono2002]

*****We truly need to start organizing to take back our Republic.*****

The Dems are already organised and are succeeding in destroying it.

[LRS]

I misread the title and assumed it was about Fat Teddy.

When one sees the the word "vast" along side of the name "Kennedy", it's an easy assumption, and one I made as well.

However, there is some hope here in Supreme Court ruling...at least for the town of Hyannis.

That's the way I see it! Since this SCOTUS involves tax revenues, all the locals there need to do is show that more revenue can be generated by replacing the Kennedy estate with something else, and since people are always claiming that the super rich don't pay their fair share in taxes due to the many loopholes they have created for themselves, this might be pretty easy to claim. Hmmm! I wonder how much revenue could be generated by building an Alcohol Rehab center there?

They could take the Kennedy compound by eminent domain...

Here I go misreading things yet again! I first thought this said "They could take the Kennedy compound by ENEMA domain"...

[ontos-on]

The essential thing is that Bush nominate the right people for supreme court vacancies and not quislings like Kennedy --who will change once he gets on the court--and stealth candidates --like Souter---who did not need to change because his judicial philosphy was hidden and misrepresented by that skunk--Warren Rudman. Bush--and America --cannot afford another careless nomination from a Republican president. There will be a fight with them all, and shirking a fight is not a permissible motive for an American President at this point in time.

[bwteim]

"I really do not think anyone can imagine what chaos this decision could cause. "

Here's one comment already:

http://www.record-journal.com/articles/2005/06/24/news/news01.txt

Meriden, Conn.

Decision could help city in redevelopment project
By Steven Scarpa, Record-Journal staff

MERIDEN -- A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday upholding the rights of local government to seize property for private development could theoretically apply to the City Center Initiative, although backers say it is unlikely eminent domain will be needed.

"I think that power should always be used sensitively. But it is good for the economic development business," said Wayne D'Amico, Meriden Economic Resource Group coordinator.

[Archon of the East]

*****We truly need to start organizing to take back our Republic.*****

Count me in!!!!

[AIC]

It's been my experience when something like this decision comes down in blatant disregard for what the Constitution of the U.S. says or any law or goes against common sense, I mean, I can understand that eminent domain is for public use only. Is that somewhere somehow a pay off or bribe was made to one or some of the people making the decisions. Whether they be lawyers, prosecution attorneys, judges, congressmen/women, arbiters or what have you. My thinking is that somebody got to one or more to hand down this decision.

[bwteim]

Good points. What is distressing is that no one is truly safe and secure from seizure and this (re)confirms it. You think you can put up your feet in your own house after schlepping for 35+ years to pay for it.

[proxy_user]

Well, for now they are pressing ahead with the flag-burning amendment.

I guess to some, the symbols of freedom are more important than actual freedom itself.

However, I would be inclined to re-evaluate these priorities.

[OESY]

IMPORTANT:


In his clarifying dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas exposes this logic for the government land grab that it is. He accuses the majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment's "Public Use Clause" with a very different "public purpose" test: "This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.'"

And in a separate dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor suggested that the use of this power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion--take from the poor, give to the rich--would become the norm, not the exception: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

That prospect helps explain the unusual coalition supporting the property owners in the case, ranging from the libertarian Institute for Justice (the lead lawyers) to the NAACP, AARP and the late Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The latter three groups signed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain has often been used against politically weak communities with high concentrations of minorities and elderly. Justice Thomas's opinion cites a wealth of data to that effect.

And it's not just the "public use" requirement of the Fifth Amendment that's undermined by Kelo. So too is the guarantee of "just compensation." Why? Because there is no need to invoke eminent domain if developers are willing to pay what owners themselves consider just compensation.

[bwteim]

""I really do not think anyone can imagine what chaos this decision could cause. " "

And here's another opinion from Connecticut, Norwich Bulletin, about a surgeon wielding a sledge hammer...
I am sure citizens of Norwich will rest easy tonight.

In Norwich, seizures are last resort
By DOROTHY SCHNEIDER
Norwich Bulletin

"This is an important decision for municipalities struggling to revitalize post-industrial neighborhoods," said Norwich Assistant City Manager Bob Zarnetske, who's slated to take over as city manager at the end of the year. "(But) we recognize eminent domain is a sledgehammer and has to be wielded carefully."

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050624/NEWS01/506240303/1002

[AIC]

This is not the first time that the Gov. will take land away from others and give it to other private industries. Just remember what the Gov. and Andrew Jackson did to the Cherokees in the 1800s. They owned land, where citizens of the U.S. and even had a congressman in congress and it didn't do any good.
If someone wants your land bad enough and has the resourses, they will get it. Law or No Law.

[Jeff F]

You mean like: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.", as we already have in the fifth amendment?

It does little good to amend the Constitution, when we have justices who pay no attention to the Constitution.

But don't you see: they are taking private property for private use so there is not need to provide compensation. Such clever justices we have who are able to read the Constitution with such clarity and imagination.

[bwteim]

The editorial had to be excerpted as I slowly discovered. It's on the Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints.

But that last paragraph you cite is the killer.

[bwteim]

oldironsides wrote: I really do not think anyone can imagine what chaos this decision could cause.

Editorial from Macon, Georgia

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/opinion/11969331.htm

Posted on Fri, Jun. 24, 2005

There is no safe haven for U.S. property owners

Probably few in Middle Georgia know much about the case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday - Susette Kelo, et al., v. City of New London, Conn., et al., No. 04-108. However, the impact of the 5-4 ruling will reverberate throughout the country.

The case seems simple on the surface. The petitioners asked one question: "What protection does the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement provide for individuals whose property is being condemned, not to eliminate slums or blight, but for the sole purpose of 'economic development' that will perhaps increase tax revenues and improve the local economy?"

Basically, the city of New London handed its eminent domain powers to the not-for-profit New London Development Corp. The NLDC had created a plan to redevelop the Fort Trumbull neighborhood (Pfizer planned to build a global research center adjacent to it) and decided a hotel conference center, new residences and offices were a better use for the land than the established neighborhood there. So they took it. And now the Supreme Court has made their land grab legal.

The petitioners all live in the neighborhood with the Thames River as a scenic backdrop. One petitioner lives in a home that has been in her family since 1901. Her son's home, next door, has been in the family since 1903. Now all that will soon change. The NLDC will own the land but will lease it to developers for $1 a year. The city hopes those developers' projects will bring it $1.2 million in property taxes.

So what does this mean? Writing in dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor put it bluntly, "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Unfortunately, O'Connor's opinion was not shared by justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer.

On behalf of that majority, Justice Stevens wrote, "Without exception, our cases have defined that concept (public purpose) broadly"

Not only does this decision legalize taking property from individuals for the purpose of increasing a tax base. It also allows the government to cheat individual owners out of the appreciated values of their property. Owners - victims - will receive "fair" compensation, but who decides that? And is that compensation determined by present or future use?

We agree with the opinion expressed by Scott Bullock, the attorney representing the families, in The New York Times. "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today," he said. "Our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."

[Bernard Marx]

How is it the left can so successfully frame the issues that they pretend to be for the little guy and opposed to big business when it it the liberals on the court who ruled in favor of big business?

Haven't you caught any of the liberal workshops on "framing" recently? There was lengthy one one C-Span not long ago and I watched it in the spirit of "know thine enemy," the way one studies the habits of a venomous snake. They're training the troops how to seize issues from "conservative control" and "frame" them from a "progressive" standpoint.

As a former advertising copywriter I saw much that was familiar to me from that medium. "Framing" is the essence of advertising -- and political propaganda. Try this Google search: "framing rockridge institute" and learn what the opposition's up to.

[bwteim]

" If someone wants your land bad enough and has the resourses, they will get it. Law or No Law."

I wish I had a hundred cites to disprove that statement, but I don't think that is the case.