Think you own your home? Think again!

again...did you see who wrote this opinion and who dissented from it??

 

I can't begin to think what the 5 justices who were for this decision were thinking. There is a case right now in Austin about a small hamburger joint on the UT campus that is going through the same thing. The university wants to build a parking lot and hotel on the property. The owner of the restaurant and many locals are arguing that this isn't a public necessity. I guess he just lost his grounds since it apparently doesn't matter anymore.

The term "Private Property" just took a huge hit and may soon be erased from our society. What the hell were they thinking?

 

Why the surprise? This is just like raising taxes except you're taking property away instead of wages, all to supposedly better the community. The liberal/conservative split on this decision should be predictable.

 

Some 5 years ago, one event completely turned me against the Republicans. This Supreme Court ruling is so profoundly bad that I may fundamentally change my views on those so-called liberal judges, though not yet to switch my political alliance. Perhaps I should wait and see more reactions from the die-hard Democrats on this one ...

 

i agree with you. to me, it's quite obvious and no surprise how this particular decision would break down among the justices.

 

this seems like a pretty poor decision. what exactly were those justices thinking? it seems like such a no-brainer to decide against this, that there has to be something more to it.

otherwise, it doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

Yep, we need the actual stake holders to weigh in. Anyone from New London, CT?

 

And for the 3rd time, did you bother to read which judges voted for this or did you just assume so you could get off a cheap shot at the right?

This is why I sometimes laugh at all the Dems vs. Repubs vs. Right vs. Left etc. They're all the same. It's us vs. them.

 

This thread is a shocker! Everyone agrees on something political. Amazing.

How the judges ruled this way is unbelievable. What is it going to take to get this repealed.

The judges that voted for this overturning are going to have serious egg on their face.

 

Welcome to the anti-war movement, drummer.

 

They have a poll on msnbc and I think the results right now are

3% for

97% against

I don't think it matters what your political affiliation is to know this ruling sucks. This is one case where congress needs to step in and do something about this.

 

Dude, private property is THE most fundamental right we have in this country! Our whole system is built on it!

So, when it comes to respecting private property, don't f*k with Americans, this is the ONE thing they definitely agree on.

 

BTW, wasn't Olajuwon involved in a legal battle with the City of Houston on a similar issue? I remember it from a few years ago...

 

Yes it involved the old World Trade Center building down near Minute Maid Field.

 

Concurred.


[size=-2]This home in New London, Conn., is one of several at the center of
Thursday's Supreme Court ruling. Susette Kelo and other homeowners
had refused to sell their property for what their city said was a needed
private development project.[/size]

OK this is not a fancy looking luxury home, but good enough for average low to middle class John & Jane Doe to dwell in. We are not talking here about a sh!tty blight junk house that deserves to be bulldozed into oblivion. For what this matter appears, liberals are doing themselves a huge disservice.

 

Us and Them
And after all we're only ordinary men
Me, and you
God only knows it's not what we would choose to do
Forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died
And the General sat, as the lines on the map
moved from side to side
Black and Blue
And who knows which is which and who is who
Up and Down
And in the end it's only round and round and round
Haven't you heard it's a battle of words
the poster bearer cried
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There's room for you inside
Down and Out
It can't be helped but there's a lot of it about
With, without
And who'll deny that's what the fightings all about
Get out of the way, it's a busy day
And I've got things on my mind
For want of the price of tea and a slice
The old man died

 

Possibly not as bad as originally thought? (but still a terrible ruling)

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in a separate opinion in the property rights case (Kelo v. New London, 04-108), appears to have put city governments on notice that they can go too far in using the added power that the Court seems to have given them to seize land for economic development.

The majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens sought to put off to the future any correction in the breadth of the new decision. Stevens dismissed "hypothetical cases" raised by property-owners, saying those "can be confronted if and when they arise." Those concerns, Stevens added, "do not warrant the crafting of an artificial restriction on the concept of public use."

Kennedy was not so reticent. Although he joined the Stevens opinion in full, it is clear from his concurring opinion that he sensed that the prospect of abuse was more evident than Stevens had acknowledged. Since his vote was necessary for the city of New London to prevail, his separate opinion in some sense may be said to be controlling.

According to Kennedy, if an economic development project favors a private developer, "with only incidental or pretextual public benefits," that would not be tolerated even by applying the minimum standard of "rational basis review."

His opinion elaborated: "There may be private transfers in which the risk of undetected impermissible favoritism of private parties is so acute that a presumption (rebuttable or otherwise) of invalidity is warranted under the Public Use Clause." He called it a "demanding level of scrutiny," thus indicating that it was something like "rational basis-plus."

He did not spell out such a heightened standard further, saying the Kelo decision "is not the occasion for conjecture as to what sort of cases might justify a more demanding standard."

Kennedy was employing a technique raised to the level of a science by the late Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. -- join a majority opinion, but then add a concurrence that softened the edges somewhat. It is a technique that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is also good at deploying now and then.

No doubt, land-use lawyers trying to protect existing property users will now spend considerable time and energy developing arguments to exploit the opening that Kennedy's opinion appears to have created. At the same time, lawyers for city governments bent on calling in private developers no doubt will be giving their clients stern advice on how to proceed in order to avoid running afoul of Kennedy's presumption of "an impermissible private purpose."

www.scotusblog.com

 

I think I know the names of these 3%: basso, bigtexx, and ... T-J.

Lets crush them.

 

i seriously, seriously doubt it. knowing those guys' politics, i'd be willing to bet they vehmently disagree with this opinion.