Posted on 06/25/2019 1:27:57 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Our constitutional system assumes that federal courts serve to remedy an injustice created by officials in the legislative and executive branches. Unfortunately, federal courts, even the Supreme Court, sometimes are responsible for creating an injustice.
Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court did that for property owners in Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City. On Friday, in Knick v. Township of Scott, the court ended that injustice by overruling Williamson County by a 5-4 vote.
For more than 30 years, people with claims under the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause have been told, “Get in the back of the bus. You are not allowed to go to federal court to seek relief for a claim that a state official has taken your property without just compensation.”
A reasonable person might say, “Huh? How can that be? Everyone else can go to federal court to sue the state over a constitutional violation. People can sue in federal court for a First Amendment free speech clause violation, a Fourth Amendment search and seizure violation, and so forth. Even a prisoner convicted of murder can sue the state for an Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishments clause violation. Why not me?”
Those are fair questions. The answer is that the Williamson County decision—a ruling only a lawyer could love—was responsible for that outrage.
Before I discuss that case—and its offspring, San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco—let me mention three settled background principles.
First, the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause expressly prohibits federal and state governments from taking someone’s private property without providing “just compensation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailysignal.com ...
Its a good reversal.
People go bankrupt or die having to exhaust all state court remedies and the states know this. Plus all the money required to go through the court systems.
Every autocratic nation in the world knows and uses this principal.
This decision is a watershed.
Bravo!
"Even a prisoner convicted of murder can sue the state for an Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishments clause violation."
Regarding lawyers who protect their convicted criminal clients by arguing 8th Amendment “cruel and unusual punishment” as a politically correct wild card to fight even minor punishments, let’s compare the 8th Amendment with the 13th Amendment.
"8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted [emphasis added]. "
"13th Amendment, Section 1 [of two sections]: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted [emphasis added], shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
And here’s the “flaw” with the 13th Amendment (13A) imo that gives lawyers the incentive to argue “cruel and unusual” punishment.
"13th Amendment, Section 2: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
And speaking of "harsh" punishments for convicted criminals, note that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment (14A) discourages the states from letting criminals vote.
”14th Amendment, Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime [emphases added], the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
On the other hand, 14A has the same “flaw” that 13A does imo.
"14th Amendment, Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Patriots need to elect a new patriot Congress in 2020 elections that will not only support PDJT’s vision for MAGA, now KAG, but will also do its constitutionally enumerated duty to make punitive laws to discourage crime, including voting fraud.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG!
<>Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented. She concluded that Williamson County was correctly decided and that, in any event, stare decisis principles militated against overruling it.<>
Bite me b!tch. The Constitution is the law of the land, not the whimsical fancies of past Supreme Courts.
Can’t beat city hall.
two words Dred Scott, how about that stare desisis
Not only is it a good reversal decision - it sets another “precedence” of correcting past mistakes and not leaving them because they’re “settled” law...might hear a door creaking open for a few more....
Justice Thomas appears to be chomping at the bit to get rid of a bunch of old and improperly decided precedent.
He does - and it will take at least 1 more pick by Trump to help hi set things a bit straighter.
I wish we could clone him. He is the clearest thinking of any of the justices IMO. I disagree with the deference he’s willing to give to the police state, but otherwise he’s right on.
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.