Posted on 06/26/2005 4:22:57 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
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.
Nice summation.
Is there really any wonder as to why these bogus judges keep trying to do away with the 2nd Amendment?
"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.
Second Amendment sissies-----to libs the US Constitution is little more than a nuisance.
No, it's the conservative justices who consistently try to uphold The Constitution.
Welcome to the People's Republic of America.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How many sons does Jesse Jackson have?
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.