LIBERAL LAND GRAB (Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al.)

NY POST ^ | June 26, 2005 | EDITORIAL

[Liz]

The stereotype is that conservatives are heartless and in the tank to big business — while liberals are the ones who stand up for the little guy.

So how come the liberal Supreme Court justices just sold a bunch of New London, Conn., homeowners up the Thames River?

In essence, the court expanded the requirement of "public use" — the longtime limit on eminent domain — to anything that supposedly enhances economic activity. No more need for a truly public need — such as highways, parks and bridges.

The liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer — joined with moderate Anthony Kennedy to state that economic development is a legitimate "public purpose" that can override private property rights.

The court's more conservative members — Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia — all dissented.

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton......" wrote O'Connor.

Added Thomas: "Losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful."

It's ironic that the conservative justices are the ones who sound like the New York liberal voices that rise to block almost any sort of economic development.

Kelo is the logical end product of a political philosophy that seeks generally to expand government power.

It did so this time, in spades.

Both Congress and state governments need immediately to consider what specific limits can be drawn on the concept of "public purpose" — and how best to mitigate the effects of this truly disturbing decision.

[saneright]

If you check out some of the left wing web sites you will see that even they are upset at this position. They are so f**ck"n stupid that they can't understand how the lefties on the court including Ginsburg and Sthouter could vote this way. I am not sure why they are surprised that socialists hate they concept of private property ownership.

One poster on even blamed this decision on President Bush. His logic went something like this: This decision was made while W is president therefore its W's fault. End of story.

[Peach]

Interestingly, there were two libs at the party last night and they were as appalled as everyone else, so you're right that this issue will resonate with ALL people.

There was a lib on Neil Cavuto's show trying to say this was capitalism at its best. I was shouting that capitalism at its best would have developers offering such an obscene amount of money to reluctant homeowners that they changed their minds, not that they were forced to move.

And since when did Democrats like capitalism? And the funny thing is, they rail against corporations and this is being done FOR corporations and in the New London case, for Pfizer Corporation in particular, a pharmaceutical, the Democrat's favorite demon.

[Liz]

Nice summation.

[skimbell]

Hell they knew that this was coming. Why do you suppose that limp-wristed sissy SCJ Kennedy just had a hissy-fit about lawyers defending judges when they make bad/crooked/illegal decisions. Kennedy more or less insisted that local Bar Associations had a "responsibility" to bend the little people over and instruct them as to how the law really works.

Is there really any wonder as to why these bogus judges keep trying to do away with the 2nd Amendment?

[ncountylee]

"The stereotype is that conservatives are heartless and in the tank to big business — while liberals are the ones who stand up for the little guy."

Because that's another liberal lie.

[OESY]

A good post that draws attention to the importance of appointing the right Supreme Court justices, and why the Sellout-7 were wrong.

Three of the five justices who voted to weaken private property rights, a guarantee that with the rule of law has attracted investment to this country for over two centuries, were appointed by Republican presidents eager to appease the liberal faction of their constituency. Let us hope history does not repeat itself once again.

[Liz]

Second Amendment sissies-----to libs the US Constitution is little more than a nuisance.

[dalight]

Useless effort if the judges just rule that this means something other than what is written. In Kelo, the Court found that it isn't bound by the words on the page, thus in interpreting the constitution, they are perfectly capable of defining red to be blue, day to be night and up to be down, and the only recourse people have is to write another silly useless amendment.

[libertylover]

It's ironic that the conservative justices are the ones who sound like the New York liberal voices that rise to block almost any sort of economic development.

No, it's the conservative justices who consistently try to uphold The Constitution.

[Boston Blackie]

This is leftism taken to it's logical conclusion: state seizure of private property, re-distribution of wealth at the whim of the government and those who are politically connected.

Welcome to the People's Republic of America.

[Americanexpat]

"Second Amendment sissies----to libs the US Constitution is little more than nuisance."

Actually IMO, they are treating the Constitution like toilet paper.

[bwteim]

Agree. See Justice Thomas in dissent from SCOTUS Decision:

"I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her [O'Conner's] dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court's error runs deeper than this. Today's decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government's eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause's original meaning, and I would reconsider them."

SCOTUS Decision can be found here: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf

Microsoft: "Where Do you Want to Go Today?"
Stevens, Bader- Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Kennedy:
"Where Will you be Sleeping Tonight?

[nathanbedford]

I have a different take on the class warfare aspect to the liberal majority's seemingly uncharacteristic ruling which appears superficially to side with corporate giants against the beleaguered homeowner. Here is what I said last night:

As far as I know yours is the first post I have read in which a conservative questions whether we as conservatives ought to deplore the court shrinking from exerting its authority over a state agency. States' rights and all.

Why did this court do it? After all, this gang of five are not renown for their restraint. If you are as cynical as I am, you will look no further than the class which is empowered by the ruling: Intra city municipal politicians.

[Peach]

I've been pointing out that we will have to look more carefully at Mayoral and city council candidates. They will be wined and dined and leaving office with a lot more money than they had when they came in.

[nathanbedford]

In effect, the Supremes have just franchised a Koffi Annan in every inner city in America.

[alice_in_bubbaland]

I think that the USSC-5's lack of foresight is very, very disturbing. Not just in this ruling but in future ones as well.

[mware]

When the ruling first broke, Neil had on one of the owners. He was initially offered 60K for a 10 room home on the water front.

[Mark was here]

This is leftism taken to it's logical conclusion: state seizure of private property, re-distribution of wealth at the whim of the government and those who are politically connected.

This confirms what has been happening, in Detroit the city cleared out a whole neighborhood, by the river, and while Archer was Mayor his son, was a partner in the company that got the land. What happened here is appalling because the city did it's best to drive the residence of the area out, not even filling a single pothole in the street. Today instead of the old neighborhood maintained. you have an area with two old houses from holdovers, surrounded by new concrete streets, and a couple new houses being built (practically surrounded by barbed wire). Not many are going to buy a house in an area with no real schools, but charges for them any way. The whole mess is typical government redevelopment.

The Mayors son, is about as politically connected as it gets.

[Peach]

That offer got upped to $150,000 or $160,000. We used to live in CT and there NO way that man can purchase anything even close to comparable for that price.

[nathanbedford]

Please see my # 35. The cronyism and nepotism will become rife because they will have gone to school on the example of Koffi's son. It is almost as good as bag money and perfectly legal-hell it now carries the imprimatur of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

How many sons does Jesse Jackson have?