Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.
This stinks!!
The Supreme Court really sucks.
Not a good day for private property owners ~ Bump!
Whaaa????
Bye bye property rights. First they take our money, now they take our property. Imminent Domain rearing its ugly head.
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local government may seize private property for purposes of profit-making private development, declaring that this constitutes a "public use" under the Constitution. (Kelo v. New London, 04-108).
The Court decided that it is unconstitutional to deny a free lawyer to an individual who has pleaded guilty to a crime and seeks permission to appeal. The 6-3 decision came in the case of Halbert v. Michigan (03-10198). Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced the decision.
In a second decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court ruled by a 7-2 vote that an amended habeas petition cannot avoid the federal habeas one-year filing deadline, when it makes a new claim that is based on facts differing from those in the original pleading. The case was Mayle v. Felix (04-563).
In the third ruling of the day, announced by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court ruled unanimously that the federal government retains its sovereign immunity and thus cannot be sued by farmers claiming that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation reduced deliveries of water to a water supply district in order to protect endangered species of fish. (Orff v. U.S., 03-1566)
The Court, dividing 5-4, clarified the power of federal courts to decide lawsuits that involve some parties who do not satisfy the basic requirement that their claims must be worth more than $75,000. In an opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court ruled that, if one party satisfies that amount minimum, the claims of others in the case may be decided even if those are for less than $75,000. The ruling came in the consolidated cases of Exxon Corp. v. Allapattah Services (04-70) and Ortega v. Star-Kist Foods (04-79).
In a 7-2 ruling in a habeas case, the Court ruled that that a rule 60-b motion seeking to challenge a District Court ruling on the statute of limitations for filing habeas petitions is not a successive petition, and thus may be decided by the District Court without prior permission from a Circuit Court. The ruling, announced by Justice Antonin Scalia, came in Gonzalez v. Crosby (04-6432).
Further decisions will come on Monday.
Renting looks better and better.
U.S. Supreme Court = Mother Government
"For the common good" (and more money for us)
Stinks? Sucks?? That is far too mild. Private property rights in the country is now dead. Economic freedom cannot survive very long without private property rights.
This court is gotten so far out of line, it is almost treasonous. They are basing decisions on public opinion, on international law, on international opinion. What ever happened to basing decisions on THE CONSTITUTION??
This is very very serious and will have very serious implications for the future of this country.
And no, I do not think I am over-reacting.
Wow. This is bad. Very bad. How could anybody possibly see Wal-Marts and hotels and other private development as deserving of eminent domain?
My father's business was almost destroyed 40 years ago when the Commonwealth of Virginia condemned his auto shop and land and paid him about $.10 on the dollar for it, in order to build a four-lane bypass through it. He had to relocate and rebuild miles away on other property he owned. I can't even imagine the same thing happening just so a private owner can put in a business that'll kick back tax revenue to a municipality so they can spend it to increase their power!
}:-)4
In case you hadn't seen this yet.
Who were the 5?
This is going to make big headlines in Michigan, where the memory of GM's Poletown plant still burns hot. An entire neighborhood was devestated when the place was shoved down the throats of citizens, and the Michigan Supreme Court finally ruled it was a wrongful taking...far too late to do any good.
This is VERY bad news. Just which so-called "justices" voted for this?
This is not good.
No, too believable.
John Paul Stevens authored the opinion - dunno who the other four are yet (it was 5-4).
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.