I am extremely disappointed. Usually, I find SCOTUS as a rational mind within the chaos of partisan politics, adhering to the Constitution and upholding the rights of the minority. Yesterday/Today, they changed that. They have decided that, regardless the ownership of your property, the government can uproot you to the highest bidder….

High court OKs personal property seizures

Update: Kennedy shows potential for being a swing vote should the issue be re-visited

10 comments

  1. I agree, it is incredibly wrong, blatantly unconstitutional, and sets an extremely dangerous precedent. At the same time, however, there’s this sniggling little voice in the back of my head that says “goodie, white folks get to see how it feels now.” Can’t help the thought that it’s poetic, if evil, justice – the government and courts screwed Natives and few outsiders complained. Now it’s their turn to see how it feels to get reamed with a 60-grit condom and no lube. Sorry for the crude analogy, but it’s about the only one that fits.

    Like

  2. I’m stunned

    Absolutely stunned. This sets a horrible precedent, especially here on the east coast where land/housing is at such a premium. Your historical 100+ year old lakefront home? Gone to make room for a resort. And what do you get out of the deal? Probably only the value of the land itself, which is peanuts compared to the value of the home that was there, or the resort they put there. And the original land owner won’t see a penny of the profits from the deal. Just a pitance for the land itself, and maybe a little extra for the inconvenience of having to find a new home. Meanwhile the politicians and big business owners get to stuff their pockets. This isn’t paranoid rhetoric. This is EXACTLY the precedent set by this decision. This is absolutely horrifying.

    Jesus. And I thought the flag-burning ban Amendment was insane. WTF happened to the Supreme Court?!? Was someone just struck retarded, or do they get a kickback?

    Like

  3. Interesting. Republicans usually argue that any society in which proporty can be “arbitrarily” seized is one with no potential for economic growth. Apparently, it only applies to their property, or at least the property of rich people.

    If your house can be taken away at any moment, for the benefit of a corporation, what is the point of buying one?

    Like

    1. That was pretty much my gut response. Raze the houses, move everyone into high-rises and apartments, then watch everyone buy houses in other countries so they can have one, then slowly watch them emigrate.

      There is hope, though, Kennedy is apparently well aware the potential for abuse, I posted the link at the top in my response to Ravynn.

      Like

      1. More like, raze the houses of the poor and middle class, then move them into shanty towns. I’m sure the houses of the rich and powerful will be safe enough. Of course, this sort of thing is yet another example of the current fashion for dismantling the social institutions and practices that protect the rich, too. The presence of a big middle class has saved the collective bacon of the rich at least three times: once during the Great Depression, when it wasn’t so big but was big enough, once during the Vietnam era, and once during the inflation of the ’70s. It also had a great deal to do with the Western victory in the Cold War. When 80% of the population is living in Third-World-style slums, there will be little to prevent the next economic crisis from bringing a Lenin or Hitler to power in the United States. At which point rich land developers will find that Liberals who just insist that they can’t take people’s houses are not so bad after all………

        Like

    2. Exactly which libearls on the court stood up for individual property rights?

      I would like to point out that the Carter (Ginsburg) and Clinton (Breyer) nominee’s were part of the deciding party. There was a Ford (Stevens), Bush (Souter) and Reagan (Kennedy) nominee there as well. The Nixon (Rehnquist), other Bush (Thomas) and Reagan (O’Connor and Scalia) nominee’s dissented.

      Seems to me the Conservatives were split and the Liberals were whole hog for “diverse and always evolving needs of society”.

      Like

  4. Things could look better

    I am going to have to look at the case and read the decision before I can make a decision on this, but on the surface it looks bad.
    If it is bad the depth of damage that can be done before it is reheard could be enormous.

    Land has been taken for commercial purpose in the past, telephone, telegraph, rail roads but in general those were for the general good in ways that could be justified with obvious logic.
    A new Wally World or Condo just doesn’t measure up to the public good test in my opinion.

    I am in hopes that state laws and constitutions are able to hold this down somewhat.

    Yes, I decided to visit after all FC, it seems your connected to someone I consider a relative in Iraq.
    I am so used to being attacked in that other blog that you may be right about my behavior, I may have become gun shy of anticipated responses over there.

    Paul

    Like

    1. Re: Things could look better

      Yes, there are lots of problems that can come with this decision, thankfully, some of those that sided with the local government, on the judicial bench, recognize this and issued a response directed at the state and local governments. My partner is suggesting a movement to get states to amend to prevent the over-extension of this, should they not be prepared for it.

      Who am I connected to, as I know several people over there? Feel free to email it to me, as the minute I respond to this this thread will be readable by everyone.

      I can understand being gun-shy, especially when the anticipated response is more conditioned due to the pattern. I try to go to each blog with a clean slate, in my mind. Keeps me to reading the words and not the tone and allows me to open my perspective. The people I know come from all areas of opinion, most of them in one direction or another from me. Personally, I’m a moderate with conservative leanings, so I take flack from all directions. 😉

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s