[Liz]

...... 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. ....

[Peach]

This is a reverse Robin Hood. Robbing from the poor to give to the rich.

And I can bet my house that the money being given to the Connecticut residents isn't half what they need to buy a comparable house anywhere in the state of Connecticut.

Neil Cavuto mentioned some figures regarding the "just compensation" and it was staggering. And sad.

[Tarpon]

Want to see this reversed in a hurry ...

Go out to Utah, have a city take over an abortion clinic, give the land to Walmart.

Instant repeal. Liberals are so predictable.

[sergeantdave]

Overnight, we've gone from a democratic republic with individual rights to a fascist state where government now controls all private property for the Marxist "common good."

[PGalt]

America's robed mullahs will eventually litigate/legislate themselves into a coroner.

[clearlight]

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.

[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.

[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.

[AndyJackson]

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.

This is real easy, actually. Pass a bill defining public use to be use by the public as Justice Thomas argued, and state that no state shall receive any federal funding from any federal source for any purpose if it excercises eminent domain for any purpose other than public use, uses any method other than legal methods to induce surrender of property or pays anything less than the expected value of the property upon completion of the planned development effort. Further provide that any citizen can file an action in any Federal Court to enforce this act, and can obtain attorneys fees plus 10% of any federal funds returned to the Federal government as a result of violation of this act.

[APFel]

This whole thing could have been avoided if New London repossessed the property in the "usual" way.

Send out an appraiser to reevaluate the value of the properties. The appraiser estimates the property to be worth an obscene amount of money, so the town jacks up the property tax so high that the home owners can't afford to live there anymore and the homes aren't marketable at the price the appraiser sets.

Boom- back door eminent domain. The land is up for grabs.

For those of us who are upset about this ruling (myself included), perhaps this will serve as a wake up call to all of the government's rules on home ownership. I live on an acre of land, but I can't cut down a tree without saying "Mother, may I?" to the city government. I can't modify the interior of the home without having some jerk with a clipboard wander around my house in order to adjust the taxes I pay. Minneapolis just recently (a few years ago) condemned some buildings downtown in order to give the property to the Target Corporation against the owner's will.

In essence, the SCOTUS did nothing but officialize stuff that was already widespread practice.

Call me a silver lining gazer, but I think that the outrage caused by this ruling (from both the left AND the right) may swing the pendulum in favor of the home owners.

APf

[Sam Cree]

I personally am just completely amazed, not only that the court decided what it did, but that they used classic socialism as justification to justify it. Justice Stevens actually wrote that the city could confiscate homes because it was in the "public interest" and because they were using "careful planning." In other words, the common good, implemented through central planning. It couldn't be more obvious and it couldn't be more shocking.

To me, this means that the court has decided that working toward the common good, the means to be decided by higher authority, is now the guiding principle of the USA. Farewell to individual rights, personal liberty and all that. Farewell to the USA, as we once knew her.

I have never in my life suffered a greater loss of faith in our government.

[GOPJ]

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.

The "stereotype" is self-serving bulls--t put out by the liberal MSM. It's a lie. The MSM "stereotype" about conservatives is also a lie. Anyone surprised?

[jla]

From now on no one's property is safe. Once liberals stood for the rights of the working man. Yesterday's ruling proves that that was all a sham. It is big government that liberals stand for, and anything that gives government more power and authority is fair game.

Excerpted from Kiss Your House Goodbye

[two23]

What the GA State Attorney General said;

"Fortunately for Georgians, our state constitution and state judiciary have consistently held that condemnation for private purposes is not acceptable under state law, a position that will be unaffected by today’s federal court ruling."

"Georgia will remain one of the few states in the nation where a homeowner will not lose the family home or farm to make way for a private development boondoggle."

[Quick1]

This fight isn't about liberal vs. conservative. It's about We the People versus Developers and Big Corporations.

The sooner we realize this, the better.

[ko_kyi]

This ruling could bring the whole thing down. Imagine these scenarios.

Politicians everywhere start cozying up to developers and get a set of plans drawn up to develop on property owned by people the politician doesn't like. Then they just force them away - condemn the property, give pennies on the dollar. Perhaps the "developer" is just a phony corp, and dissolves once the city has the property.

Whether you are a gun store in California, a Planned Parenthood in Utah, a conservative church in Seattle, or a Moveon.org office in Alabama - you can be evicted and put out of operation by politicians cooperating with developers. What happens to a radio station studio when a local reporter gets a "Watergate" on the Mayor?