Supreme Court Deals Blow to Property Rights

Reason ^ | 6/23/17 | Eric Boehm

[Skywise]

If they had been black - the ruling would’ve been unanimous.

[Hostage]

Kennedy (80) needs to go, along with Ginsburg (84) and Breyer (78). Kagan and Sotomayor are still too young to speculate about their replacement.

Kennedy is the one that caused the ensuing persecution of Christians post-Obergefell which was in line with all rulings he authored of similar subject matter since 1996.

His clerk background is shady, he lied to Mark Levin who interviewed him during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Once either Kennedy, Ginsburg, or Breyer are gone, this important issue of property devaluation will be revisited.

Note that the property was reported as appraised at $400,000 but the only buyer reported was the county which offered $40,000. It would be interesting to know what the property tax assessed value was. If the tax assessment value was more than $40,000, the family should sue the county for difference X 3 plus attorney fees and costs, plus distress and bad faith.

It is a mystery as to why Gorsuch did not participate. I would expect him to have joined in the dissent.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

It’s an assault on property rights that this case even made it to SCOTUS.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “if the Court had ruled for the landowner, it would be catastrophic for most all local governments as the volume of value lost through land use regulations on the local, state and federal levels would be staggering.” <<

And that is exactly what should have happened!

Eminent domain, and “land use regulations” should have died 50 years ago. They serve only tyranny at this point.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Land use regulations are the country’s worst enemy!

We have to take away that tyrannical power from the hands of municipal thieves.

[Sopater]

This has to be reversed by the congress.

We have to make this case a top priority, or the entire bill of rights is history.

No argument here.

[Henchster]

Heat of the moment grammatical error.

[gunsequalfreedom]

Keep in mind, this always first comes down to a decision by your local elected officials.

If you were in an elected position with this decision facing you, what would you decide, pay them $400,000 or pay them $40,000?

[TexasGator]

Read the decision. It is all very clear.

[TexasGator]

Perhaps the author misstated the facts ....

[SoConPubbie]

I work for a local government as an eminent domain appraiser and if the Court had ruled for the landowner, it would be catastrophic for most all local governments as the volume of value lost through land use regulations on the local, state and federal levels would be staggering. I make no judgments here other than the SCOTUS opinion was probably swayed by that fact and lot much by the Constitution.

This problem has long been in the making as the Supreme Court has arbitrarily, over many decades, purposefully made up so-called "constitutional" property law which should have been left to the legislative branch.

[TexasGator]

The didn’t lose 90%.

[Sopater]

If you were in an elected position with this decision facing you, what would you decide, pay them $400,000 or pay them $40,000?

If I were in an elected position, I would say, "It's your property, do as you wish. Who am I to tell you what to do with it."

Then I wouldn't give them a dime.

[M Kehoe]

It is apparent that the federal government and certain states will not allow you to own land unencumbered.

So the concept of an “alloidal” title is history.

Did I spell that wrong?

5.56mm

[Fightin Whitey]

Much easier to write a “scathing dissent” when you know it doesn’t mean crap.

[SkyDancer]

There was a case in WA where this elderly lady had some property condemned by the city and forced to sell on that eminent domain thing - city didn’t do a thing with it and sold it later to a car dealer for a dealership.

[Teacher317]

To avoid liability in the case, the state and county told the Murrs they could combine the two parcels of land for regulatory purposes.

Even if they did so, that would not change the fact that the second parcel was greatly devalued by the state taking its usefulness from them.

[daler]

Democrat presidents are batting 1000 with their Supreme Court nominations.

They never disappoint the left.

Meanwhile, Republicans have gotten the likes of Kennedy, Warren, Souter, Stevens.

[sergeantdave]

One of the sticks in the bundle of property rights is the right to subdivide. The majority of these black-robed fascists don’t have a clue what property rights are. We need a US Congress that can impeach and remove these totalitarian dopes.