In this AP story found on Yahoo News we can read about the Supreme Court case in which the majority of the justices, all of them liberal, decided in their infinite wisdom that you are too stupid to keep your house and that a bunch of government kleptocrats are better suited to know what to do with it. I have to say, this has got to be the single worst ruling I have ever seen from the court, and I have been around for a while now and have seen some pretty bad ones.
Can there be any more doubt that the court system in this country is out of control and in need of serious attitude adjustment? If I am any judge of what other bloggers are thinking, there is plenty of outrage around the net. Certainly there is plenty of anger among conservatives who value the original intent of the constitution and the original intent of the founders. But perhaps some members of the left will also wake up with this ruling when they come to realize that their houses in their trendy neighborhoods might be the next target of Wal-Mart.
No observant liberal can help but notice that this ruling is a victory for big corporations over the poor and middle class. Local governments around the country are looking for ways to increase their revenue and now any big corporation that can influence their local politicians, will have a strong incentive to take as many of our houses as they can get away with. And they won't care if the owners voted for John Kerry or not.
A Democrat I know at work seemed a bit confused at the ruling saying, "I thought that the Democrats were the party of the little guy." I felt a bit sorry for him as he was obviously operating on a long-ago version of what Democrats use to stand for. Today's ruling demonstrates something very different. As I tried to explain to him, this is about who values the concept of property rights, not who is in favor of big business. I am a capitalist as a matter of philosophical conviction. But that view rests on the sanctity of the rights of the individual, including property rights. The concept of property rights is crucial to maintaining a free society and was one of the most important ideas of our founding fathers. Big corporations should have to respect the rights of others, even if those others don't have a lot of money, power or pull with their local zoning board.
It is a pity to see the Supreme Court throwing those rights away and allowing government, big developers and corporations to steal our homes simply in order to generate some additional tax revenue. But this is exactly the effect of their ruling.
If there is a silver lining to this cloud, it is that more people may now have an incentive to pay attention to the out of control court system which is taking away more and more of our rights. And the ultimate solution is to get people onto the court who understand and value the constitution as it was originally written and conceived. There are plenty of reasons to want to win that fight, even though it will take some time. But we have little choice other than giving in to those who want to take our homes away from us.
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer Thu Jun 23, 11:07 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.
In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.
The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes.
"The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain, but you better be careful and conduct hearings," said Thomas Merrill, a Columbia law professor specializing in property rights.
The closely watched case involving New London, Conn., homeowners was one of six decisions issued Thursday as the court neared the end of its term. The justices are scheduled to release their final six rulings, including one on the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on public property, on Monday.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.
"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.
He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.
The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects.
At least eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.
A number of bloogers around the net have weighed in on the Supreme Court case:
Powerline says, "Your Property Will Be Better Off In My Hands"
Captain's Quarters "We're From The Government -- We're Here To Move You"
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler looks at "Revenue Positive"
Michell Malkin gives us a round up from the net
No comments:
Post a Comment