SCOTUS: Cities may seize homes at will... Kelo v. New London (merged)

[mfree]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...300783_pf.html

This makes me sick to my stomach...

[dasmi]

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

Good man. Do not give in.

[Netzapper]

I came in here to post this. Thanks for doing so already.

[Waitone]

. . . . . and there exists those in the second amendment community who are upset because SCOTUS has not taken a second amendment case.

I want SCOTUS no where near the second amendment, period. The water's temperature just went up a notch.

[stevelyn]

Black robed arses voted in govt self-interest.

[redhawk41]

SCOTUS has once again demonstrated that the individual means nothing when weighed against society, regardless of what the Constitution says.

this ruling is clearly in violation of the 5th amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

... let alone for a private corporation who will provide more tax revenue for the coffers that pay the salaries of the SCOTUS justices. individual liberty in America is dying, slowly being replaced by the love of the all mighty $$$. what individual rights truly remain that cannot be bought for the right price or taken by force of arms?

private property no longer exists in the United States of America (as if it did before this ruling).

your body belongs to the government, your children belong to the government, your house belongs to the government. how, again, is this not socialism thinly veiled? how, again, is this not slavery thinly veiled?

[wingman]

Yes sir, another nail in the coffin of freedom. More people, more laws, less
freedom, enjoy.

[dasmi]

*sigh*
Time for a ctrl-alt-del on our Government I fear.

[longeyes]

I want SCOTUS no where near the second amendment, period. The water's temperature just went up a notch.

Agree. I think we all can smell where this Court would come down on the matter.

A time for Serious Reflection...

[Rojoe67]

Did I just here what I think I heard?

The Supreme Court has voted that the rights of private ownership could be over powered by land developer types. I understand that if an Interstate has to go in they can force you out and this happens daily. What I am getting from this radio report is that if a super strip mall wants your land then they will be able to force you out too. If that is true and this comes into law I would bet a lot of folks like myself will die at my residence while defending my right to own it and live there. What right under anyone's understanding of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and many other documents that made our nation the democratic place, gives a very wealth guy the right to push out a hard working NOT wealth guy? This one takes the cake.

Someone told me a few years back that this country will destroy itself from inside out. He also said to look at history and follow his thought process. I hate to give him an inch but there is a sad truth to what he told me. Each day as the rights seem to change and social insight forces more tolerence of this and that, it is evidence of what that man spoke. I hope and pray that he is wrong and our generation and the next 25 generations wake up.....

[Spotted Owl]

From O'Connor's dissent: "Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded—i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public—in the process."

This is scary. If I were the owner of a range, say a gun club, I'd be very afraid that a city government hostile to guns would condemn my land and give it over to development. I'm sure many governments would consider almost any use other than a rifle range to be an "upgrade".

[Capt Charlie]

You heard right . I'm following this on CNN as I type here. Frightening and disgusting; so much for our "supreme" court. If people don't raise hell with congress to pass legislation to override this, well, when Wally World snatches their home, they'll have no right to gripe.

[Ohio Annie]

I just saw this on drudgereport. I had been following the case cuz my Mom went to college in New London, back when. Shameful decision. Yes, it means if the mayor doesn't like you they can bulldoze your house and make a skatepark.

There is another thread on this topic below this one too.

[Waitone]

What else is endangered?

--church property
--private schools
--private hospitals
--gun ranges
--gun shops
--race tracks

In short, any property (real or otherwise) that someone well connected wants or dislikes is subject to confiscation. If you have access to the flow of funds and you are smart enough to get involved in local politics, you will be able to have the state confiscate anything you want.

We just witnessed the institutionalization of political corruption.

[Ohio Annie]

Your own house could be endangered if the mayor doesn't like you.

[JimDiver]

I see no further use for these black robed tyrants.

[boofus]

The situation is becoming less and less awkward.

Is it time yet?

[alan]

Re this USSC ruling, the following question comes to mind.

IS ANYTHING, PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED AS PRIVATE PROPERTY, SAFE FROM THE BEADY EYES OF GOVERNMENT??

Answer: ME THINKS NOT.

Comments, questions, alternative views??

[Spotted Owl]

Here's a link to the decision.

[Trip20]

Is this a result of the woman who's still living on National Park land (can't remember her name) after her husband passed away and left the house/land to her? Apparently the government and her husband entered into a contract (22yrs in length IIRC) when he was about 60yrs old. The contract said that in 22 years the government would take control of the land as it's smack dab in the middle of like Yosemite or something.

Anyone hear about this or am I insane as usual?

The supreme court is truely scaring me especially as of late.....

[MikeK]

TRip - That's a different case. This one is in Connecticut. Watch ranges start to be shut down in any areas that don't want them.

[joab]

What I am getting from this radio report is that if a super strip mall wants your land then they will be able to force you out too.

Not only that but if you live in an extremely modest (lower class) development, like I do, that is surrounded by new $500,000 to $1,5000,000 homes and they're running out of swamp land to build in, a developer can come in and convince the mayor that he can increase the tax base by decreasing the number of poor people and claim your neighborhood for the greater good.
This can be done without the usual price negotiations when buying someone's property.

Is this a result of the woman who's still living on National Park land

No, this is the result of some developer that wanted to build a business complex and hotel in a neighborhood where some of the people had been living and building their lives for 50 years and inconsiderately refused to sell

[Romulus]

The supreme court is truely scaring me especially as of late.....

As of late? Marbury v. Madison was in what, 1803? Dred Scott ws in what, 1857?

And there are folks who just can't wait for the 2nd to reach SCOTUS...

For all the excoriation of Scalia and Thomas on this forum, let's look at who the dissenters were in this case. Until there are more Scalias and Thomases on the Court, I don't want a 2nd Amendment case to even get near this tribunal of robed monkeys.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Attention, Attention - you have just found out that the core rulers of the country care most about big business profit!!

Ain't that a surprise. You thought it was about social conservative values?

[jefnvk]

I can kinda see the whole taking land to make an interstate, or gov't building, kinda. Even those to me are iffy, but probably accpetable.

This however, is way out of line.