| |
Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Property for Development - New York Times
by Decius at 11:51 am EDT, Jun 23, 2005 |
A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
|
| |
RE: Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Property for Development - New York Times
by Jamie at 12:01 pm EDT, Jun 23, 2005 |
Decius wrote: A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
This is a sad sad day. Individual property rights and individual rights are very important. |
|
| |
RE: Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Property for Development - New York Times
by skullaria at 6:55 pm EDT, Jun 23, 2005 |
Decius wrote: A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
What can I say? I'm REALLY not happy about this. This is what a Republican controlled government DOES though, and I'm clearly in the minority. |
|
| | |
RE: Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Property for Development - New York Times
by Decius at 9:16 pm EDT, Jun 23, 2005 |
skullaria wrote:
What can I say? I'm REALLY not happy about this. This is what a Republican controlled government DOES though, and I'm clearly in the minority.
I hardly think thats fair. Connecticut is very much a blue state, and the conservative justicies all dissented in this decision. Conservative commentators are fuming about this all over the place. This is what a Democrat controlled government does. |
|
| | | |
RE: Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Property for Development - New York Times
by IconoclasT at 3:47 pm EDT, Jun 24, 2005 |
Decius wrote: skullaria wrote:
What can I say? I'm REALLY not happy about this. This is what a Republican controlled government DOES though, and I'm clearly in the minority.
I hardly think thats fair. Connecticut is very much a blue state, and the conservative justicies all dissented in this decision. Conservative commentators are fuming about this all over the place. This is what a Democrat controlled government does.
It smells almost like Communism to me... Supreme Court of the People's Republic of Amerika. |
|
Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Property for Development - New York Times
by Rattle at 5:01 pm EDT, Jun 23, 2005 |
A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights. 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." Justice Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice O'Connor's fellow dissenters were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
|
| |
Supreme Court sez: Rich People Own You Now
by Dagmar at 2:07 pm EDT, Jun 24, 2005 |
Justice O'Connor's fellow dissenters were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Side note: These people are now my heroes for a while, I was just about to recommend this same story (but from a different site, namely CNN) and with a much more honest subject line (see above). http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fortune500/retail_eminentdomain/index.htm?cnn=yes |
|
There is a redundant post from Shannon not displayed in this view.
|
|
