Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservative Supreme Court justices reverse precedent on property rights cases
The Hill ^ | 6/21/19 | BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN

Posted on 06/21/2019 9:33:45 AM PDT by cann

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 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alreadyposted; landrights; lawsuit; propertyrights; robertscourt; ruling; scotus; takings; trumpscotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

1 posted on 06/21/2019 9:33:45 AM PDT by cann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cann

There goes that darn Roberts again! And that darn Kavanaugh!


2 posted on 06/21/2019 9:34:51 AM PDT by bigbob (Trust Trump. Trust the Plan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Re: Roberts.....even a broken clock is right twice a day.

This was a great ruling by SCOTUS. There are times where “precedent” should not be the only consideration in a case.


3 posted on 06/21/2019 9:40:27 AM PDT by Howie66 ("...Against All Enemies, Foreign and Democrat.....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cann

WINNING!


4 posted on 06/21/2019 9:43:49 AM PDT by Guenevere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
I don't think any reasonable person can question whether John Roberts is a conservative.

Recall that he was in the majority on Citizens United and in the minority on Obergefell (Gay marriage) in which he dissented strongly. He was also in the majority on DC vs Heller.

No justice who is for Citizens United or against the legalization of gay marriage and in favor of the 2A cases like Heller is a liberal.

I think the only question is his how consistent is his conservatism.

5 posted on 06/21/2019 9:45:48 AM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Downside to this is now the RATS have another weapon to block the Wall


6 posted on 06/21/2019 9:46:25 AM PDT by Zathras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cann

So, re-precedented?


7 posted on 06/21/2019 9:47:04 AM PDT by rktman ( #My2ndAmend! ----- Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cann

So much for Stare Decisis.

When do the Liberals start rioting? Waiting, waiting...


8 posted on 06/21/2019 9:49:00 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (THEY LIVE, and we're the only ones wearing the Sunglasses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cann

Now overturn “Kelo” and we have something to overhaul eminent domain in this country once and for all.


9 posted on 06/21/2019 9:50:36 AM PDT by NohSpinZone (First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cann; bitt

Baby steps, Justice Thomas...baby steps.


10 posted on 06/21/2019 9:52:37 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Did you know that the C_A is the largest venture capital source in the world?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cann

Good post, the most immediate effect is that this ruling means that property law cases can now move more quickly through the federal courts.

Takings cases sit for years in state courts with each level of state appeal rubber-stamping the previous (often incestuous) court.

Meanwhile the property owner can’t sell or use their own land. Until they are worn down by litigation. The states have little incentive to hear or settle property takings.

This is a particular problem in states that fight over water rights. The Yakima Indians have been in court for over 40 years on the same case of water rights on the Yakima River.


11 posted on 06/21/2019 9:57:14 AM PDT by gandalftb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cann

Gasp! Overturning precedent... must protect...


12 posted on 06/21/2019 9:57:47 AM PDT by rhombus10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NohSpinZone

Yes. That is what I thought the headline was referring to. And New London has never done anything with the property, other than bulldozing it, have they?


13 posted on 06/21/2019 9:58:15 AM PDT by originalbuckeye ('In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act'- George Orwell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

Well, isn’t this the issue w MOST SC picks by Republican Presidents? Most in my lietime who went left, went HARD left. Others CANNOT be relied upon to vote there conservative principles. Whereas liberal Dem’s MOST ALWAYS vote liberal.


14 posted on 06/21/2019 9:58:53 AM PDT by bantam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bantam

The problem is that once they are appointed for life with mo financial problems ever, they turn leftist.


15 posted on 06/21/2019 10:00:15 AM PDT by yldstrk (Bingo! We have a winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Howie66
There are times where “precedent” should not be the only consideration in a case.

Ah, but they did something clever here. It was not merely the overturning of a precedent, but aligning the law with other precedents. They are actually arguing that they are respecting precedents (broadly) while overturning a precedent (narrowly).
16 posted on 06/21/2019 10:00:42 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rhombus10
Gasp! Overturning precedent... must protect...

Why didn't we hear about sacred precedent when Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) was overturned?
17 posted on 06/21/2019 10:02:34 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cann
KELO (Eminent Domain) is another infamous decision of the Supreme Court that has cost New London millions with no improvements. The property still is unimproved.

Remember that case - "Kelo"

18 posted on 06/21/2019 10:03:51 AM PDT by Rapscallion (If they are not for Trump, they are against him. Fire them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

I don’t think they have. It was just the local municipalities just wanting to have the power to take land as they wanted.


19 posted on 06/21/2019 10:03:57 AM PDT by NohSpinZone (First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NohSpinZone

Appalling. I remember at the time on this board, calling for Souter’s New Hampshire property to be seized and sold. Just for the heck of it.

It never was.


20 posted on 06/21/2019 10:07:25 AM PDT by originalbuckeye ('In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act'- George Orwell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson