The Supreme Court F's up
In a ruling handed down this morning the Supreme Court said that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development.
The 5-4 ruling — assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America — was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, said that "It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area."
Hello!!! The plaintiffs weren't asking the court to oversee boundry lines or to sit in review on the size of anything! They were asking the courts to respect their constitutional right
Justice O'Conner issued a harsh dissent saying, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
At stake was the 5th Amendment which allows governments to "condemn" (aka: take) private property via "eminent domain." But, only if the land is for public use.
Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, summed today's ruling up succintly: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."
Yep!
(cross-posted at Preemptive Karma)
2 Comments:
Great post Kevin. I agree with you that this was the wrong decision.
I dunno if it's my conservative roots showing or my libertarian streak (is there a difference?), but it's a scary decision in my eyes.
Republicans of course are trying to spin it in their favor by pointing out that the majority in this ruling was dominated by liberal to moderate Justices, while conservative to moderate Justices dissented.
The problem with just accepting that argument on it's face is that the court is dominated by justices who were nominated by Republican presidents. Indeed, the majority in this particular ruling is dominated by Republican nominees.
So... it would be equally valid to conclude that allowing Bush to nominate any more would only make the problem worse. Don't expect any Republicans to willingly connect those particular dots for you, though. Likewise, don't expect Dems to willing accept the frame that this ruling is the fault of liberals. both conclusions are equally valid.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home