US Supreme Court has gone mad!

[DanS]

Historically, reform of emminent domain is a republican issue. It has been killed most often by democratic politicians, who normally govern cities, and find eminent domain a good tool to help redevelop the slums. Generally, republicans don't govern cities and redevelopment is not yet neccessary in their areas. Large parcels of undeveloped land are still available.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Of course, considering the outrage, the Congress will obviously pass a law that will make this ruling irrelevant, won't it?

the court explicitly said that STATES may pass laws that restrict cities from doing things like this. I suppose congress could try to come up with something under the commerce clause, then we could have this whole argument the other way

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Wow... the liberal 4 have now pissed off the left to no end in this session of the Court (first with med pot and now with this). Maybe it's a ploy to make it look as though CJ Scalia isn't such a bad idea to those on the left .

You mean the three moderates and two conservatives. One conseravtive and three reactionaries voted against.

That's okay. We just have to use our state constitutions to put in an amendment forbidding the government from taking our property to give to some developer.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap
I feel so dirty.

Think how I feel... I agree with DanS!

Must shower! Must scrub clean! Gaaaaaaaaaah!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
They should have done this on the Summer Solstice - with that lovely full moon. So far we have The Diplomat, Mr. Fun, Dinodoc, Stuie, Gepap, St. Leo, Impaler, Oerdin, JohnT, Lawrence of Arabia, Tuberski, Ogie, Boann (I checked her thread) and myself (my adjective is OBSCENE) all in agreement.

Now I feel filthy.

[Dr Strangelove]

Of course most home owners have only limited funds to with which to seek legal recourse, and we all know who sets "fair market value" - the city/county real estate assessor and/or the guy with the most highly paid lawyer.

[DanS]

One thing I find interesting is that a couple of justices live in Southwest DC, a large portion of which is being redeveloped by heavy use of eminent domain.

[asleepathewheel]

sign me up for opposition.

This ruling just makes me ill. I can't imagine what it would feel like to have a home of 20 years taken from me for "market value" and replaced with a strip mall. :vomit:

[Berzerker]

The SCOTUS ruled correctly, nothing I know of in the US Constitution prohibits the states from using eminent domain for whatever reason. I'd have to read the dissent to see what they say on the matter. The Constitution authorises the Feds to do the same but limits application - for federal installations, post offices, dockyards, arsenals, etc. The land must be used for federal purposes, not private.

There is a somewhat notorious case in New Jersey where Donald Trump wanted an elderly widow's property to build a garage for his limos. He asked local thugs (politicians) to seize her land and sell/give it to him and they did.

So we would need to look at the specific state constitution involved to see what restrictions it places on eminent domain. Frankly, I'm not much of a fan of emiment domain even when the land is to be used for government.

The irony here is that while politicians use eminent domain in the name of redeveloping slums, the politicians share alot of the blame for creating slums in the first place.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You mean the three moderates and two conservatives. One conseravtive and three reactionaries voted against.

That's okay. We just have to use our state constitutions to put in an amendment forbidding the government from taking our property to give to some developer.

No, I mean FOUR LIBERALS. Just because you are a leftist wackjob doesn't mean you define the middle of American politics .

After all, only a wackjob would consider Ginsburg and Breyer to be 'moderates'.

Of course most home owners have only limited funds to with which to seek legal recourse, and we all know who sets "fair market value" - the city/county real estate assessor and/or the guy with the most highly paid lawyer.

Well, to be fair, the assessor has set the value for property taxes. Maybe this will make more people want the value of their home listed higher, rather than lower (which allows them to save on property taxes).

[Whoha]

We are just going to have to take eminent domain away from the government.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd have to read the dissent

Interestingly enough the dissent would allow the seizure if it was for a strip mall or small office buildings or housing development. It had a problem with having most of it benefiting one private party.

SOOO, if this was a strip mall case, the decision would be 9-0.

[DanS]

At most 8-1. Thomas narrowly construed "public use" to mean actual public use, not private use.

[Berzerker]

I will say though using eminent domain to hand people's property over to developers violates the spirit or intent of eminent domain as employed by the feds. The Constitution spells out why eminent domain is needed by government and nowhere in that rationale is "economic development". Its like the restriction on ex post fact legislation, the Constitution spells out why expost facto legislation is to be condemned - it endangers existing contracts. But the courts have held that the restriction only applies to criminal legislation, i.e., government cannot punish you for behavior that was legal at the time even if that behavior is later criminalised. The problem with this interpretation is the Constitution mentions contracts. For example, the feds cannot go back in time to raise taxes even though this often happens. When Clinton entered office they raised taxes back to Jan 1 before Clinton was inaugurated. This puts existing contracts in jeopardy by imposing economic burdens of people they could not plan for.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the Constitution spells out why expost facto legislation is to be condemned - it endangers existing contracts.

You got it incorrect. The provision (Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1) says:

"No State shall. . .; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility".

It didn't say or "any OTHER Law imparing" contract, but impairing the obligation of contracts is another restriction on the state. Ex post facto was also intended to be for criminal litigation (it may have been the primary consideration). This is seen by Calder v. Bull decided in 1798.

I believe that but one instance can be found in which a British judge called a statute, that affected contracts made before the statute, an ex post facto law; but the judges of Great Britain always considered penal statutes, that created crimes, or encreased the punishment of them, as ex post facto laws.

If the prohibition to make no ex post facto law extends to all laws made after the fact, the two prohibitions, not to make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; and not to pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, were improper and unnecessary.

Also Jefferson believed it to apply in criminal cases as well:

"The sentiment that ex post facto laws are against natural right, is so strong in the United States, that few, if any, of the State constitutions have failed to proscribe them. The federal constitution indeed interdicts them in criminal cases only; but they are equally unjust in civil as in criminal cases, and the omission of a caution which would have been right, does not justify the doing what is wrong. Nor ought it to be presumed that the legislature meant to use a phrase in an unjustifiable sense, if by rules of construction it can be ever strained to what is just."

(Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13th, 1813)