Goddam Supreme Court. I'm glad to see someone standing up to these overbearing, law making assholes. They no longer interpret the law. They are a fucking oligarchy. Whatever their political stance or point of view dictates how they rule - even if it means making shit up.

Example: Who the fuck are they to tell a private org. like the Boyscouts whether or not they have to allow gay scout leaders? Even if the did rule in favor of the Scouts, who in hell are they to say it's their decision?

Sunsabitches!

I hope this publicity stunt doesn't die quickly. There could be a lota mileage in it.

This man, Logan Clements, is my hero.

Porperty Rights are part of the foundation of a free society. This Supreme Court ruling has done more to harm individual freedom (and encourage government cronyism) than any in my lifetime.

John Locke is spinning in his grave. BTW, this guy swears it's not a publicity stunt.

Fark is up to about 500 comments on this. Fun to watch the lawyers try and out-penis eachother.

"I've been out of law school 5 minutes, you're all retarded"

"Oh yeah! I've been out of law school infinity minutes, u are teh suxxor!"

I love the developers reasoning. If you're building a resort dedicated to the loss of freedom, it's got to be Souters' house. Makes sense to me.

This situation wasn't created, wholecloth, from the SCOTUS ruling.

This fellow, and others, should start hitting up the members of the city council and the zoning board.

Surely, some of those fellows are sitting on prime,waterfront real estate.

Yes, this decision restricts our freedoms, and that's a bad thing. But the response being advocated around here is better suited for the screaming ninnies at 9-11Peace.org.

First, you're advocating outcome-oriented jurisprudence. I'm sure some of you are very well educated on what history and the Constitution tell us about the Founding Fathers' views on government takings. But the vast majority of you probably don't have any idea what the Founders' views on this issue were. Instead, you're like me -- you just don't like the result.

In other words, you're bitching and moaning because the Supremes' decision was that the Constitution doesn't say what I want it to say. That's exactly where the right to privacy came from. And that way, madness lies.

Second, let's assume that Souter and the majority of Supreme Court Justices just got this one wrong. Do you really think they all voted the way they did because they have some vested, personal interest in restricting their own property rights? Or is it more likely that they actually believe that the text and history of the Constitution suggested that the government was intended to have that power?

So what's the point of punishing Souter? To try to get him to practice more outcome-oriented jurisprudence? To intimidate others into falling in line with our political goals? Or maybe for revenge because he disagrees with us? Because I think any of those reasons would be fine for Alec "Hunt Them Down With Dogs" Baldwin, but I expect conservatives to be a little less likely to hyperventilate and get pit stains when discussing people that disagree with their politics.

Third, you're opposed to this ruling because it could be abused for political reasons ... but support it here because Souter opposed our politics? Once again, that's fine for Daily "Fuck 'em" Kos, but surely we're not the party of the hive-mind, are we?

Settle down, people. Instead of taking a page from the liberal playbook, let's practice what we preach: use the political processes to achieve our political goals. In other words, let's talk to our Congressmen and state legislators, get some protective legislation passed, and if anyone comes for our property, let's vote the fuckers out of office.

After all, that's the response I've been giving since Day 1 on the issue of whether the "illegal combatant" designation gives the government too much power. "If the government abuses its power, we'll vote them out of office. Just because the government could do something doesn't mean that it is."

I see that jmflynny just made my point in about 500 fewer words. Sorry for the long post to make such a silly, obvious point.

Well, Comish, surely you can appreciate irony.

Or, can't you?

I don't believe that anyone here actually advocates, or truly believes, that Justice Souter will lose his house. The action that has been (or rather, will be) taken against the justice simply places the ruling squarely in His Honor's lap from which, perhaps, a new perspective can be considered.

Publicity stunt? Perhaps.
Realistic? Probably not.

I do not agree that the Constitution allows for this ruling, but neither do I believe that the justices ruled out of some sense of contempt for society-at-large.

In any case, we are in agreement on one thing:

A vote is a mighty powerful thing.

And, given that the Supreme Court will not be deciding these issues on a one-by-one basis, it is up to the voters to make this more than just the issue du jour.

Frankly, and it is just my opinion, but just about anyone should be able to appreciate the humor in this situation.

How far the stunt is taken will determine the moment when the fun ends.

The Comish,

I have to respectfully disagree, even though the points you make are good.

First off, the guys doing this are doing it for maximum exposure as to what the actual consequences of this ruling are. Do you think the press would give a rat's booty when actual property seizures are committed (which is already taking place)? The decision would go down the old black-hole unless a high profile, dramatic challenge were to be made. I also don't think this will inspire a wave of revenge takings on the part of activists against judges as long as the issue gets honestly debated by our once-again absent press and (for the most part) spineless congressmen who pay attention more to polls than to principles.

Didn't the Supreme Court rule from time to time in favor of slavery? Abolitionists engaged in some high-profile activities in direct contravention of the rulings, so were they wrong? How about Prohibition, when closet-drinking government officials were outed in local newspapers for their hypocrisy?

I don't think this is so much revenge against Justice Souter, I think it's an application of a stated principle to demonstrate the irrationality of the ruling. And by doing so, your correct call to getting local and state politicians to address the issue properly becomes much more likely to succeed if the nation's attention is focused upon it.

Rebelling against accepted current-day governmental abuse of authority through actions, including such august bodies as King George and his Parliament and the Supreme Court, is a part of our history as a nation. A Supreme Court justice ruling that the use of force to take private property to give to another for private use may well be a logical extension of the progression of law. A demonstration of its actual practice therefore is quite legal, newly acceptable, and well in keeping with that ruling.

That wee poofter (and Teller, of Penn and Teller, look-alike) is exhibit A, B, and C as to why Bush the Second must not put forward a compromise nominee for the next Supreme Court vacancy. How do you think we got that little shit in the first place?

The hunt is on. Looking for someone to locate each of the five justice's (sic) current and/or family homes. There are developers waiting to condemn each of them and put up something that will bring in more property tax money. Serves the nuts right, destroying the one part of the constitution that protected everyone in the U.S. Now you have no hope of owning or keeping anything you work for.

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the wealthiest Justice, worth between $7.7 million and $33.7 million, excluding her home in Washington and some other holdings. She also has retirement accounts worth at least $4 million. Ginsburg has ranked as the richest justice in past years as well.

"Stephen Breyer comes in second, reporting a net worth of between $4.2 million and $15.2 million. This estimate does not include Breyer’s home in the posh Georgetown neighborhood in the nation’s capital, although he did list rental property in the West Indies and real estate holdings in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

"Sandra Day O’Connor is worth $2.8 million to $6.4 million. She holds a long list of telecommunications and medical stocks and, like the other justices, often recuses herself from cases that might impact her portfolio. O’Connor is reportedly the most frequently absent for such conflicts of interest.

"John Paul Stevens and David Souter are also millionaires, with Stevens worth $1.3 million to $2.7 million, and Souter worth $1 million to 5.1 million."

[From some fucking socialist website.]

"So what's the point of punishing Souter?"

The point of punishing Souter is to instill fear in the rulers and thereby to help protect ourselves. If Souter and the Court had decided this case on the basis of a Constitutional principle such as federalism, I would respect the decision. That is, if the Court were properly willing to let 50 states make 50 determinations as to just where to draw the line on imminent domain, I'd consider that Constitutional and--more importantly--good and just. However, by all accounts, the decision is simply favorable to these takings themselves. For eroding our security in our possessions and preparing the way for a free-for-all in entrepreneurs' and governments' collusion in theft, we need to punish Souter and set an example. Besides, we'll be helping his township increase its tax revenues; it's a win-win situation.

Commish,

I couldn't disagree more. And, unlike others, I hope the effort IS successful in taking Souter's property.

I'm no constitutional scholar, but the 5th amendment seems pretty clear to me on the issue of eminent domain.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Public use does not mean public good, public benefit, increasing the public tax base, private use that will result in job creation or anything else that isn't written in the 5th amendment.

Souter chooses to interpret public use as "public purpose," and in doing so has re-written the 5th amendment.

Fine. He should be the first to experience the consequences of this re-write. I can't think of a more appropriate first response, as it will amply demonstrate the insanity of this ruling.

Additionally, it will demonstrate to judicial and legislative powerbrokers that they will be made to suffer the consequences of their decision making by living under the rules they create. This will, in turn, force them to consider the laws they create and interpret more carefully.

Meanwhile, we should all contact our local legislators and press for state and local legislation prohibiting this outrageous interpretation of eminent domain.

Next up, government subsidized housing in every Democratic lawmaker's neighborhood!

Man, I never expected to find such serious constitutional debate on a moronblog like this.

You're all missing the obvious point--this is hi-fuckin'-larious! Just roll with it.

In other words, you're bitching and moaning because the Supremes' decision was that the Constitution doesn't say what I want it to say.

No, Comish, conservatives believe that the Constitution says what it says, not that it can be morphed into something remarkable and NEW by the 9 members of the Supreme Court. As Warden pointed out above, the four liberals and a fence sitter on the court -- the ones who believe in the "living breathing document" baloney -- decided it says what THEY think it says and not what it actually states right there in black and off-white. In English, no less, so conflicts of interpretation really shouldn't be coming into play, but, as happens all too often with left-leaners in this country, English tends to be an impediment to rational discourse.

So what's the point of punishing Souter?

Who's "punishing?" Sounds like Souter's being AGREED with. Come on, if Souter thought these land grabs were Wrong or even BAD, then why on Earth did he rule in such a fashion? I fully expect Souter to surrender his land without a fight. Don't you?

Settle down, people. Instead of taking a page from the liberal playbook, let's practice what we preach: use the political processes to achieve our political goals.

Well, the problem with THAT, if you haven't noticed, is the judicial branch has been picking OFF political legislation by declaring it unconstitutional, hasn't it? From the line-item veto to gay marriage, the court system is becoming more thorough in weakening the power of our collective vote.

Thanks to this ruling, let me guess what's going to happen. IF the local government starts taking steps to protect property rights, how long do you think it will take for some lawyer to file a lawsuit and claim the legislation is unconstitutional? And, thanks to this ruling, there's a REAL good chance the lawyer will win, and POOF, there's goes the legislation and the protection. The courts have been overstepping their bounds for some time now, so the paranoia springing from this ruling isn't exactly materializing out of thin air.

"If the government abuses its power, we'll vote them out of office. Just because the government could do something doesn't mean that it is."

Well, you can't vote a SCOTUS member out. And, considering the fact that this lawsuit made it to the Supreme Court in the first place, the government isn't just capable of doing this, it's in the process of taking away these people's property already! You want to vote "them" out AFTER all the homes have been leveled and the owners pushed out? It's a tad late, don't you think? Not only that, the ink wasn't even dry on this decision and another land grabbing suit was filed, this time in Texas.

So, honestly, comparing any reactions you've seen here to maniacal liberal bed-wetting over some silly "We can't get San Francisco to paint the Golden Gate pink" ordinance just isn't appropriate.

Later,
bbeck

jmflynny-

This fellow, and others, should start hitting up the members of the city council and the zoning board.

The problem is, you get a city council like we have in Columbus OH.

It varies between times that 6 of 7 are Democrats, and when all 7 are Democrats(3 of whom are pretty much "developer tools")-and it seems we haven't had more than 1 non-incumbent elected for more than 10 years...

When a Dem. city councilman is a year or two from re-election- he makes a decision: 4 more years, a move somewhere up in the political heirarchy, or retirement. Of course, this allows the "appointed by the majority" 'protege'(read: "groomed and acceptable" staffer... and/or a co-opted 'somewhat more leftish' potential opposition) a year's worth of taxpayer funded publicity for being the 'main sponsor' of such controversial issues like "sliced bread" and "canned beer"-and the Dem's overall power allows for "strategic dissents" from the legislation that's going to be rammed down our throats no matter how the 'appointee' votes- thus this "new incumbent" also receives much favorable publicity in the media for their "nuanced thinking"- and/or their "independence from partisan considerations".

Meanwhile, he has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the developers...

Add in the AF-SuCk-ME influence in a state capitol with literally thousands of government jobs solely dependent on the expansion of gov't power and responsibility, the (first or second- largest in the nation) on-campus university population, and the results of a court-ordered "desegregation" plan that initiated a "white-flight" reaction that reduced the Cols. City Schools student population from over 100k in 1973 to about 65k today- while the "metro area"(but not in Columbus) student population has more than tripled...

Columbus is now a blue city... and that will not change in my lifetime.

Kelo was written by Justice Stevens not Souter. Souter was targeted because of where he lives. I doubt you could get the DC city government to consider anything like this.

IF the local government starts taking steps to protect property rights,

Since when does the Supreme Court give a shit about laws that local governments, including individual state governments, have passed?

This ruling is complete horseshit and opens the door for some serious abuses.

God, I hope that place gets built. I think it's th perfect time for the SCOTUS to see the law of unintended consequences in action.

Would pre-booking stays at this proposed hotel help it along? I'll pre-book a room for a weekend every year for the next twenty years.

I've seen bad Supreme Court decisions all my life but this one really takes the cake. So all private beachfront property can now be taken by the local town and used for hotels because the town can make a few more sheckles? My God in heaven, what disasterous consequences this one will bring! I shall pray that we put some strict constructionists back into the court before the Supreme Soviet goes any further.

Rumdummy,

Nice to see a fellow Columbus resident on this site.

I happen to live inside the Columbus school system, but as soon as I have kids (it won't be long), I'll be selling my home and moving to the suburbs so that my children won't have to attend schools where special needs students are gang raped.

White flight is alive and well, but I won't ever apologize for it. Family comes first.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Public use does not mean public good, public benefit, increasing the public tax base, private use that will result in job creation or anything else that isn't written in the 5th amendment.

THE WARDEN is right. This is "Great Leap Forward" into the Brave New World, Commrades.

I think this will serve to show these dictator judges the potential outcome of there rulings. While outcome based rulings are not something we should be advocating, surely any sane human being capable of looking at the US constitution and not seeing a basic protection of property rights is not looking at the letter of the law. The fact that any justice sided in favor of seizing property from one individual and transferring that property to a private developer is baffling to say the least. The right to property is essential in our freedom. The idea that we can owne something and feel reasonably secure in the knowledge that no one can take it away is a rather powerfull component of freedom. I know I have to pay taxes on that home or property , or the government will seize it. However, provided I can afford to maintain this property and pay the taxes on it, I should be able to exist and enjoy that property without a fear of someone seazing it from me and paying me only what They feel it is worth? I don't care if it's a 10,000 mobile home on the side of a rock, if I like that property I should be able to refuse to sell. What if the price offered will not cover my mortgage? Old people could be put out on the street over this ruling. They more I think abnout this, the more insane I get, attempting to seize this justices house is certainly appropriate. Since this justice issued this judicial fiat, any exploitation of that fiat is legitimate. I mean really, lets just go friggin crazy and seize every crummy scrap of land out there. That is the only hope to get this ruling reversed. Only if enough people are angry about this ruling will we ever be able to get anything done about these judicial tyrants.

Not just beach-front property or family homes are in danger. Family farms are now also at risk. Here not only is the farmer in danger of losing his home but also his livelihood. Further. Some are objecting to this move because it's a "revenge" move. I've seen enough local government in action to know that this type of taking can also be a political weapon.

Marty and Rabidfox

Well said! I'm trying not to hyperventialte over this so I'll pray about it. Always works!

PS - Ya'll might try it too.

Since when does the Supreme Court give a shit about laws that local governments, including individual state governments, have passed?

Heh, kinda the point there, Compos.

I haven't read Souter's opinion on this, but it's my understanding that he encouraged the local governments to write laws to restrict eminent domain. And that sounds like a REALLY dumb idea.

Later,
bbeck

CT State Legislature just tried passing a law stopping other eminent domain projects but the vote went against it in the State Senate on grounds that other cities are in bad straits and must attract business and private enterprise rather than loosing it to the South or China, where property development and infrastructure improvement is easier.

The right to property is essential in our freedom. The idea that we can owne something and feel reasonably secure in the knowledge that no one can take it away is a rather powerfull component of freedom.

Except that's not what the Constitution says. It was concerned with past Crown practices of seizing needed land or resources without fair and just compensation. The Founding Fathers came from States where private property was routinely seized for private gristmills operated for the common good, land for roads, canals, bridges, harbors, and levies taken to promote growth - and always benefiting some private citizens more than others by results. And private property owners occupying geographical bottlenecks - mountain passes, portage points between two rivers - were regulated in what they could charge in tolls for crossing - for the public good. And soon those tolls gave way to public roads and freer passage of commerce.

What some people believe on "absolute sanctity of private property" is not what the Constitution intended, but a throwback to the feudal state where the Lord was absolute in his will over his land, slaves, and resident peasants.

Early on, Americans became convinced America must be a nation that fast evolves, grows, and has the most modern industry and infrastructure.

A medieval notion of stagnant soveriegnity of fixed, immutable land-owners was never contemplated. We improved on the Euros, who also put the Middle Ages behind them - in saying shifting control of real estate must be fairly and justly compensated for.

Lets not pretend that somone chucked out of their 3 bedroom raised ranch on 1/4 acre and compensated with a premium is terribly put out. Not with several thousand other 3 bedroom raised ranches on 1/4 acre of land for sale within 10 miles...Not with America now mostly a mobile society that moves from house to house, state to state.

Rumdummy...

I think you misunderstand my point.

Put the city council and the zoning officials on the hot seat....not only Justice Souter.

Again, I reiterate, I don't really want to see anyone lose their home, but a point has to be made.

Perhaps, when local goverment officials realize that their own homes are now up for grabs, they'll reconsider any other proposals that come forth.

Kind of a 'NIMBY' situation at work...

Of course, the buddy network will work in favor of helping board members to retain their own property, however; it will force them to argue publicly against the very rules they've set forth for others.

A little squirming goes a long way.

I have no desire to defend this decision – since I think it’s generally bad policy – but there seems to be some pretty large misunderstandings about it. So I’ll try and clear some of those up and respond to some points made.

I've got lots of people to respond to, so this is going to be long. You might just want to do a search for your name to see my response to you.

jmflynny
Well, Comish, surely you can appreciate irony.
Or, can't you?

Gee, did I miss the “irony” in your typed words? Silly me. I wonder how that happened?

jmflynny
I don't believe that anyone here actually advocates, or truly believes, that Justice Souter will lose his house.

Except, you know, the people who are actually trying to get Souter's house and say that it’s not a publicity stunt and that they’re serious. And of course, Kyne, The Warden, and Marty:

Kyne:
For eroding our security in our possessions and preparing the way for a free-for-all in entrepreneurs' and governments' collusion in theft, we need to punish Souter and set an example.

The Warden:
And, unlike others, I hope the effort IS successful in taking Souter's property.

Marty:
They more I think abnout this, the more insane I get, attempting to seize this justices house is certainly appropriate. Since this justice issued this judicial fiat, any exploitation of that fiat is legitimate.

So it appears that some people are serious.

Squatch:
First off, the guys doing this are doing it for maximum exposure as to what the actual consequences of this ruling are. ….
Didn't the Supreme Court rule from time to time in favor of slavery? Abolitionists engaged in some high-profile activities in direct contravention of the rulings, so were they wrong? ....

I didn’t mean to imply that, because the Supreme Court ruled this way, it’s the law of the land, and therefore it’s ipso facto a good and correct decision. In fact, I’d rather they ruled the other way. So I certainly don’t mind shining a light on this issue so that something can be done to change it. I just don’t think that infringing on property rights – which would involve some measure of hypocrisy and, in my opinion, overreaction – is the best way to do that.

Kynes:
If Souter and the Court had decided this case on the basis of a Constitutional principle such as federalism, I would respect the decision. That is, if the Court were properly willing to let 50 states make 50 determinations as to just where to draw the line on imminent domain, I'd consider that Constitutional and--more importantly--good and just.

First of all, this ruling doesn’t force the 50 states to do anything. It doesn't stop the 50 states from making 50 determinations on where to draw the line on eminent domain. It merely sets the groundwork for what states and municipalities can do. Again, just because they have this power doesn’t mean they have to use it. And states are always free to grant their citizens greater rights and freedoms than guaranteed in the Constitution.

Second, the Court could not have just ruled that they don’t have any opinion on the matter because they were being called upon to rule on the Constitution of the United States of America. And that, you know, is sort of their job. And it applies to all 50 states and all the branches of the government because the Constitution applies to all 50 states and all branches of government.

Third, the issue of what is “good and just” is completely irrelevant to the issue of what the Constitution says. I don’t want Justices to interpret the Constitution based on what they think is “good and just.” As I said, that's where the whole "right to privacy" debacle came from. I want the Justices to interpret the Constitution based on what it says and its history. I’m against judicial activism, even when it works out in favor of policies I like.

The Warden:
I'm no constitutional scholar, but the 5th amendment seems pretty clear to me on the issue of eminent domain.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Public use does not mean public good, public benefit, increasing the public tax base, private use that will result in job creation or anything else that isn't written in the 5th amendment.

Well, if your argument is that the Court interpreted the phrase “public use” to include “public purposes,” then you shouldn’t be taking Justice Souter’s property. You should be going after Justice Peckham, since he’s one of the Justices that defined the phrase broadly … in 1896. See Fallbrook Irrig. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 162 (1896) ("It is not essential that the entire community, or even any considerable portion thereof, should directly enjoy or participate in an improvement in order to constitute a public use.")..

And, of course, your interpretation will make it difficult for the government to do some things. For example, how is the government going to build or expand military bases? I think we’re all in favor of a good and strong military, but have you ever tried to get on a military base? They don’t just let members of the public walk around those places, so it’s definitely not for “public use” so much as it is for “public good.”

And what about building airports? The government usually turns the airports over to private entities to run, and turns areas within the airport over to private companies so they can put stores and gates and airplanes in there for their own personal profit.

And, of course, there are also places like the Hoover Dam. Once again, you’re not free to walk around the entire dam, so we can’t say it’s for “public use.” But providing energy to a number of states is for the “public good,” so I think it’s a good idea to let the government build those. I could go on, but you probably get my point.

More importantly, the history of the takings clause suggests that this is the interpretation the Founders had. “Public use” didn’t just mean things like parks and roads. It meant things like water sources and military installations and ports, etc., which the public couldn’t directly use, but from which the public could benefit.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has traditionally deferred to the wisdom of the various legislatures in deciding what constitutes a “public use.” Again, this is something that we conservatives typically favor, since we have recourse to change the interpretation of the legislature (by voting in new representatives), but we can’t change the interpretation of the Courts. Once again, this is a good thing.

Bbeck:
Who's "punishing?" Sounds like Souter's being AGREED with. Come on, if Souter thought these land grabs were Wrong or even BAD, then why on Earth did he rule in such a fashion?

He would rule in such a fashion because he’s interpreting the Constitution rather than acting like an activist judge. Once again, I don’t want Justices to rule based on their own, personal policy preferences. I want them to interpret the Constitution, and leave the policy decisions to the legislators.

Do you think Scalia – who ruled that flag burning was Constitutionally protected free speech – actually thought flag burning is a good idea? Or do you think maybe he thought it was “Wrong or even BAD,” and ruled the way he did because he thought it was what the Constitution required of him?

The whole point in getting rid of activist judges is that we want judges who apply the law, without injecting their own personal preferences as to what’s right and good vs. what’s “Wrong or even BAD.”

Bbeck:
IF the local government starts taking steps to protect property rights, how long do you think it will take for some lawyer to file a lawsuit and claim the legislation is unconstitutional? And, thanks to this ruling, there's a REAL good chance the lawyer will win, and POOF, there's goes the legislation and the protection.

I’m not going to say there’s *no* chance that this will happen, but the chances are almost zero. The Supreme Court didn’t decide that the government is required to take private property. It said that they may take private property under these circumstances. So the government can simply choose not to take property.

Moreover, the Court specifically said it gives great deference to the legislatures’ determination of what constitutes a “public use” and when to condemn property. Thus, the legislature is free to place whatever restrictions it wants on condemnations, and the Court will defer to their wisdom.

So the chances of the Court striking down additional protections are about on par with me winning the lottery and scoring with Jennifer Connelly on the same day. Not too likely, but not zero (I’m keeping my fingers crossed on the lottery/Connelly thing).

Plus, there seems to be a misunderstanding about what was going on in this case (fostered no doubt by incompetent judicial reporting). If you read the case, it clearly says that the City made a determination that the area at issue was sufficiently depressed to justify a program of economic rejunivation. In other words, the area was a slum, and the City was trying to get some businesses in the area for economic revitalization. The Court pointed out that the takings at issue would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted “to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals.”

We’re not talking about a situation in which the City takes one person’s home and gives it to someone else to build a strip mall on his property. We’re talking about the economic revitalization of an entire area that had been going on for years. And economic revitalization has been going on for much, much longer than just the past few days.

Bbeck:
Well, you can't vote a SCOTUS member out. And, considering the fact that this lawsuit made it to the Supreme Court in the first place, the government isn't just capable of doing this, it's in the process of taking away these people's property already!

You’re absolutely right that we can’t vote a SCOTUS member out. But SCOTUS members aren’t the ones taking property. The legislatures and municipalities are. And we can vote them out.

Compos mentus:
Since when does the Supreme Court give a shit about laws that local governments, including individual state governments, have passed?

When those laws are challenged as being unconstitutional. It’s the Supreme Court’s job to interpret the Constitution, and every branch of government has to make sure that it’s not infringing on (most of) the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. That includes local governments and individual state governments.

"Lets not pretend that somone chucked out of their 3 bedroom raised ranch on 1/4 acre and compensated with a premium is terribly put out. Not with several thousand other 3 bedroom raised ranches on 1/4 acre of land for sale within 10 miles...Not with America now mostly a mobile society that moves from house to house, state to state. "

Mr. Cedarford, I hope for your sake that you haven't p-ed off your city council to the extent that they decide (by majority vote) that your house would serve a better public purpose by being sold to a developer and that you would be justly compensated by being paid the assessed value for it. (Remember, that assessed value is less than market value in most places, but it would be hard to argue that assessed value is not a "fair" price).

Oh!

Sorry Comish. My mistake. I now understand perfectly what you're saying:

Everyone else is wrong.

You are right.

Glad we could clear that up.

There we go, jmflynny. I guess if I disagreed with others here, then I must be wrong. Never mind the actual issues, or reading the actual opinion, or responding with some sense of perspective.

Look, I don't know whether or not I'm right. And I support the same political policy that you guys do. I just trust the legislature more than I do that Courts, so I don't think this ruling is quite the apocalypse you seem to. I just (ahem) can't seem to condense that into fewer than a couple thousand words.

But I think we can all agree on one thing: You certainly were wrong.

those New London homes are beautiful, big, well-maintained, cherished family homesteads.
the homeowners were not offered ''value'', but rather a pittance.

$ 60 K was the initial offer for these waterfront homes--probably worth $600 k.

and who will get the construction contracts to pave over these homes? the Mob?
and who benefits? the drug co. research plaza going in next door?
and who receives the most money from the drug co's? CT Sen. Lieberman.
this reeks of confiscation and cronyism.
it is unconstitutional.

Comish-- you're making some good arguments, but one thing that jumped out at me:

"I’m not going to say there’s *no* chance that this will happen, but the chances are almost zero. The Supreme Court didn’t decide that the government is required to take private property. It said that they may take private property under these circumstances. So the government can simply choose not to take property."

The constitution also allows for the government to make a post office, but our stupid government has interpreted that as meaning that the goverment has a monopoly on the post office. You can't start your own post office without the government going bat**** crazy on you and shutting you down. Such fine distinctions make perfect sense to you and I, but in the hands of government they twist it to mean anything.

As for the public use thing, generally if something is in the government's hands, it's considered 'public use.' I just don't find your argument about military bases convincing.

Your point about airports or dams is more convicing, but wouldn't you rather such things be exceptions to the rule, rather than the rule itself? The very scale of difference between an airport or a dam and a condo complex is one thing. The other thing is the motivation of the legislature. If the motivation is for tax revenue, THAT is what is wrong. That's where you miss the point, I think. They aren't doing this because it "helps the public," they're doing it because it gives them, the government, more cash.

If public use = awards for private developers,

what is to stop property = not just land, but everything you own

After all, 'property' is already a pretty general legal term...can they now confiscate a patent? Your furniture, along with the land and house? Your small business?

i've heard the city of dallas is already moving to shut down small businesses.
so they're taking property and paychecks and livlihoods. why?
b/c some big political contributer asked them to?
under those cirxumstances, why would a local official ''choose not to'' grab land for his pals?

that's not public use or purpose--its just corruption

I agree with some of you all I believe that the only way to get people like Souter to understand why this judgement has gotten so many people worked up is to put the shoes on his feet per se. When I first heard that the ruling allowed the government to take people's homes and turn them into a shopping mall I was outraged. Now I can agree that in some cases it would be good. For example, a run down neighboorhood in which houses are abandoned. In that case yes, take them and put something that will draw people, However, I do not agree that taking someones home that is perfectly fine and turning it into a mall is good. One thing that a lot of these people in polotics are not realizing is when you take someones house you are not just taking wood, nails, siding, and concrete. For some people when they lose their home they lose everything.. Money, their neighbors, their tax bracket, and last but not least their memories. Everyone says a picture os worth a thousand words... How do you put a price on losing a home that you have grown up in or raised your children in, or god forbid lost a husband or wife in. Those are things that no amount of money can ever replace. If the government keeps making decisions like this on our freedom and interpreting the meaning of the rights in this way what is going to happen to other things like social security, welfare, assistance to kids for school, and god knows what else.. These people are getting to powerful and using it to impede on our rights.. We cannot let them drive our country into the ground by making us have as little rights as some of these third world countries... We have to put a stop to it and stop it now before it gets worse.