Supreme Court Rules Private Property Can be Seized

slew writes "CNN is reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case where a local community seized private houses for commercial development (not public works) under the guise of eminent domain. Needless to say, the little guy loses to the commercial developer this case... "

Comments

Not as bad as it sounds...

[DataPath]

it was a 5-4 decision, which the conclusion being that the supreme court doesn't feel it's their job the decide what falls within the "public good" clause of eminent domain.

They stated that this doesn't nothing to prevent states from legislating limits on eminent domain seizures by municipal government

Re:Not as bad as it sounds...

[DanEsparza]

Ummm ... hmmm.. Conservatives? Wow. Sounds like you have a beef against people like me. Guess what: I'm a conservative. And you know what you might find rather surprising? It was the conservative judges that were dissenting:

From http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050623/D8ATDSD80 .html

O'Connor was joined by
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (conservative)
Antonin Scalia (conservative)
Clarence Thomas (conservative)

O'Connor's dissent was surprisingly terse and (*gasp*) conservative!

From http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23wire- scotus.html?incamp=article_popular_4

In a bitter dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority had created an ominous precedent. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

"As for the victims," Justice O'Connor went on, "the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."

It pisses me off when people jump to conclusions without hearing all the facts. Next time, please do your homework first. -D

Re:bush judges

[DavidHumus]

For more of the same?

Remember how Bush made his money in baseball: building a larger stadium on land siezed under eminent domain? http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/saturday.html

Re:bush judges

[Surt]

Let's see:

In favor:
John Paul Stevens - Ford/republican
Anthony Kennedy - Reagan/republican
David H. Souter - Bush/republican
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton/democrat
Stephen G. Breyer - Clinton/democrat

Against:
Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan/republican
William H. Rehnquist - Nixon-Reagan/ republican
Antonin Scalia - Reagan/republican
Clarence Thomas - Bush/republican

I'd say toss up on whether more bush/republican judges would help here. Both democrats were in favor, but so were three republicans.