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.
In case you hadn't seen this yet.
John Paul Stevens
Anthony Kennedy
David H. Souter
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer
They are ALL deserving of IMPEACHMENT! Are any of these traitors planning to retire in the next 3 years?
Well now. The only way to overcome this is for Congress to pass a law that voids the decision. They can do it, but how to get it done?
This is the most obscene thing I have ever seen the SC do, there is no longer private property in the usa. We paid outrageous property taxes and then whenever the state wants they can just take our property and give it to whoever they want? And that is according to the SC legal?
I wonder if they are "immune" from all out Rebellion. That is where we are headed due to sh*t like this.
Peasants of China.
We the people of the US, now have the same limited number of futile avenues of redress against undue government confiscation seizure and eminent domain tyranny as peasants in China.
City councils can now condemn and take through eminent domain entire communities, openly flouting their immunity to prosecution. I know of a city council that has been waiting on this decision, they want to evict 1200+ people from a neighborhood, for redevelopment.
And like peasants in China, our only options when targeted by the government will be emotional pleas to the media, or court proceedings to beg for 75 cents on the dollar instead of 10 cents on the dollars for our properties.
Stop using the phrases "private property", and "real estate", and start using appropriate language, "privately leased government owned land, lease bought out at government's discretion", or "residential and commercial sharecropping." Property taxes are your yearly lease, eminent domain proceedings your eviction notice, and the cents on the dollar the government entity graces you with at the closing is your payment for improvements to the land and structures.
Renters in some states now have more rights to fight an eviction form their landlord then property/home owners have fighting eminent domain proceedings by government entities. At least commercial victims of eminent domain will be able to evaulate their cost basis to decide if dragging out their buy out values in court are worth it or not.
City councils are going to be bribed constantly, continuously, forever, by land developers and corporations wanting to reclaim urban zones, taxpayers who footed the bill for decades will be constantly screwed over by city councils, forever,
Government owns the casino, employs the cheating dealer, fixes the deck, cheats the deal, and steals the pot.
Urban New Jersey is about to become a real estate war zone.
Time to begin Impeachment Proceedings against 4 Supremes eliminating the 5th Amendment by the stroke of a pen!
This is the right fight but the wrong battlefield. A state legislature can pass a law preventing this, as can a city council. A state constitution may also be amended to prevent this.
Hopefully this decision will motivate people to take their battles where they belong - the legislative process, rather than relying on some deus ex machina such as the courts or beaurocrats.