Posted on 06/21/2019 8:05:39 AM PDT by SMGFan
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled 5-4 to overturn a decades-old precedent on property rights, a decision that marks a victory for conservatives.
The previous 1985 ruling that found that an individual whose property is taken by a local government cannot file a federal suit under the Fifth Amendment until that challenge fails in state court.
But on Friday the justices ruled along ideological lines to reverse that precedent, finding that the requirement “imposes an unjustifiable burden,” conflicts with other similar rulings and “must be overruled.”
“A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.
“That does not mean that the government must provide compensation in advance of a taking or risk having its action invalidated: So long as the property owner has some way to obtain compensation after the fact, governments need not fear that courts will enjoin their activities,” Roberts continued.
But it does mean that the property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and there may bring his claim in federal court.”
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined Roberts on the majority decision.
Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor – the liberal members of the court – dissented.
Trump keeps paying off.
No.
Kelo was effectively abrogated. In the wake of the 2005 decision, 45 States have passed legislation or Constitutional Amendments that prevents or severely limits the type of taking that occurred in Kelo.
Stops thug ‘environmentalists’ from stealing property of private citizens (who own something with a beautiful view) - in the name of saving some phony ‘snail darter’...
>
“I cannot quite make the connection but there seems to be some symmetry to their ruling on Fed and State double jeopardy and this ruling.”
Agreed.
Seems to follow that separate branches and levels of government have separate and unique laws and rules that can be violated.
>
1) Yet another ‘splitting hairs’ vs. “incorporation” of the Constitution.
2) Now, if they can only (FINALLY) admit that many of the Federal “laws” are extra-Constitutional to begin (thus null & void).
I know, I know. Wish in one hand, s* in the other. Further down the Banana Republic path we go...
from latimes
Friday’s ruling arose from a Pennsylvania woman’s complaint that people were walking across her property to visit a burial site. But the strongest impact is likely to be felt in California.
California has strict regulations for development in its cities and along the coast, and property owners have repeatedly claimed that these regulations and other zoning rules have the effect of taking their property for the public benefit.
Once again, the computer that automatically issues RBG’s vote along political lines does not disappoint.
No doubt it looked at the EU Constitution, or the Constitution of Cuba or Zimbabwe, when looking for suitable precedents.
Of course not. I clarified why he made his Obamacare decision recently and you’d have though I let the lunatics out of the asylum. 88 comments filled vitriol later I realized I had to let it go. Some Freepers were ready to blow a gasket.
It actually was pretty funny while it lasted. Most of them, when backed into a corner, went straight to name calling. I thought that only happened at DU.
Remember?
Some will not believe
>
How about that? John Roberts joined with the conservatives.
...
Will FReepers remember?
>
Why? Do broken clocks deserve a cookie when they finally come upon their ‘correct’ time??
Some on FR will excuse any one/thing w/in the (R)N(C) sphere for the smallest of things.
When he refused to sell, the liberal marshaled the forces of some environmental groups and made it so the man was not allowed to build on the property - making it worthless to keep or sell.
In spit of that he kept the property (and paid taxes on it) 'til he died 15 or so years ago - - kept it out of rage toward the unfairness of the liberal thugs who had done this to him. Liberals are clueless about how much people in flyover hate them.
“Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor – the liberal members of the court – dissented”
Was Notorious RBG actually in attendance?
I don’t think so. Kelo is about eminent domain, wherein the government takes your property and pays what IT thinks is fair. This is for when the government seizes property WITHOUT paying for it... and they’re citing the fifth amendment. So I’m pretty sure this is more about seizures from criminal suspects, witnesses, accessories, etc., Think about like when the police seize a car because they detected a trace of cocaine.
Liberalism is a euphemism for:
GOVERNMENT.
It’s what it does.
Hopefully all those California farmers who had their land confiscated for the high speed train fiasco years ago and haven’t been paid by the state will now have their day in court.
It should, especially since that was a political hit to enrich political cronies AND they never developed the Kelo property after stealing and demolishing it.
No, this only seems to apply to cases where the government is taking property without offering compensation or any means to obtain compensation.
Sounds like he had no choice regarding a 5-4 vote.
Commies don't believe in private property rights anyway.
have you found your answer. Sorry, I cannot help.
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.