Conservative Supreme Court justices reverse precedent on property rights cases

The Hill ^ | 6/21/19 | BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN

[NohSpinZone]

Kennedy was complicit too. Good riddance to both those phony conservatives.

[Ancesthntr]

This was a good decision.

Arguably, the 5th Amendment protection of property at issue here applies to the states. If, for some reason, it does not directly apply, then by action of the 14th Amendment it does. The Court was correct that the prior requirement of suing in state court imposes undue burdens - they at least acknowledge by implication that the process is very expensive and time-consuming, and to have to then go through it all over again is almost impossible for the majority of citizens.

[Ancesthntr]

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

---

Not so; this decision only means that they don’t have to first go to state court to sue, before going to federal court.

BTW, once 2 circuits rule that taking property for the Wall is fine (and it pretty much HAS to be, with the only issue being the amount of compensation to the property owners), then all of these suits die.

[DPMD]

Will this put “Kelo” in the crosshairs? One can only hope.

[Stravinsky]

The issue is how he reacts to criticism of "his" Court and how he'll handle major cases where his vote is critical.

Kennedy and O'Connor sided with the right a lot of the time, but they departed when the pressure was really on them. For example, after O'Connor stepped down, Kennedy moved left a bit when he became the true swing vote.

This was not a major case and had no significant media pressure. It's entirely disingenuous to act like those of us who do not like Roberts and have some concerns about Kavanaugh have no reason to be because of cases like this. (Not saying you're doing that, but others are.)

Let's see if Roberts and Kavanaugh are willing to be the fifth vote on issues the left is willing to go to war on like Roe or affirmative action when their votes will make the difference and they aren't merely dissenting from a Kennedy opinion.

[Savage Rider]

Did a Supreme Court Justice (Kagan) actually use the words “smithereens” in a written opinion? What’s next; “tumping over” a 100-year old precedent?

[WASCWatch]

This case is going to be a huge help for State of Washington property owners who have had their property virtually stolen via the Growth Management Act and rezoning.

The SCOTUS has ruled that rezoning that diminishes the value of property is a taking. The government can still rezone, but they have to pay for the loss in value if sued for inverse condemnation. Being able to go straight to U.S. District Court will make it much easier to prevail.

[SamuraiScot]

the justices ruled along ideological lines to reverse that precedent. . .

Note the bad smell they're trying to give this outcome--as if it were the act of heartless, mindless conservative robots who were blind to the particulars and ultimate meaning of the case. Has The Hill used "along ideological lines" to describe rulings by 0bama judges?

I would call this a ruling along philosophical lines.

[5th MEB]

I don’t think that would work out so well for the COMMIE RATS.
Any person of common sense who owns a ranch, farm, or recreational property along the mexican boarder does not want drug or slave smugglers using their property for a criminal highway.
They are just as likely to kill you and take your stuff on their way through as say howdy.

[trebb]

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

And how susceptible he is to browbeatings by Leftists and whether there was something that he had to fear but has resolved...the Obama Care decision was more than a hiccup....but I agree that he is a conservative with maybe a few frailties that we could do without.