These new righjts of emenate domian could be intresting…
What would happenif Walmart wants to use emenate domain to aquire a railroad yard…
brought to you by the left on the court. This was a really stupid decision by them, and will be felt around the country for years. Just wait until the corrput people of NJ use this new law for their benifit!
Brad
If anything scares me about this, it’s the potential for abuse. I’m not talking about the run-of-the-mill tear down the neighborhood for an office park thing (not that that’s a good thing). I’m talking about people wanting to get rid of neighborhoods, etc, that offend them, for whatever reason. Don’t like the [insert ethnic or other group here] on the other side of town? Rip out their neighborhood and hope they move out of town someplace.
As has already been suggested in the news, this will have to stand the test of cases in local and state courts - those desiring to use the right of eminent domain will still have to prove that the action will provide the appropriate economic gain.
local athorities are easy to be bought off though, that is the problem.
The Italians are now solidly in the middle class but that was not alsways the case. In Burlington VT and Jamestown NY Little Italys were bulldoezed for Urban Renewal.
Never happen. ICCTA preempts it.
LC
I couldn’t agree more.
I can’t say loudly enough how bad of an opinion this is. The left should hate it because of the reasons mentioned by Larry. The right should hate it because it is not a strict construction of the Constitution–although this opinion came from the left side of the Court.
Fortunately there are a few recources. Local municipalities must still comply with State constitutions. I would be willing to bet more than one state supreme court disagrees with the Supreme Court’s analysis. As for railroads, I think the federal supremacy clause will provide them a substantial amount of protection for this thing.
The true losers, as indicated by Larry, are going to be the poor, ethnic groups, and other communities that are under represented in society–and what ever unfortunate soul happens to get into the way of Wal-Mart or other such developments.
Gabe
Here we go. Now all the transit agencies, commuter rail districts, and Amtrak can claim eminent domain and take over all the rialroad property they want “for the public good.”
Mitch
I couldn’t agree more.
All we need in this world are more Walmarts[:o)]
Everyone in this country should be scared to death.[xx(][
][|(][tdn]
I don’t believe that emenant domain should be for every business. Only certain modes of transportation and only in special case. This is really a bad decision on their part.
Brad,
I’m no expert on anything, but I can do a little checking. Currently there are no liberals sitting on the Supreme Court. As it sits now, 7 of the 9 justices have been appointed by republican administrations. Only Ginsburg and Breyer were nominated by Democratic presidents.
There are generally speaking 4 moderates; Stevens(appointed by Ford), Souter(appointed by George Bush, Sr.), Ginsburg(appointed by Clinton) and Breyer(appointed by Clinton). It was Kennedy (appointed by Reagan) viewed by many as a conservative, that sided with the moderates on this decission.
I too, was taken back by this decision, but in the last 15 years its no surprise to me now, with NAFTA and the mass exit of manufacturing concerns to Mexico, cities need to recapture a lost tax base. And with CAFTA on the horizon the court had no other options then to secure a city or county’s right at maintaining or increasing its revenue stream by adding tax value with development of underdeveloped land hence the decision.
And no, I don’t agree, but there are some real basic philosophical arguments here about the rights of a collective society verses the individual that go back to the beginng of time and polictical thought?
Jim - Lawton, NV MP 236
I see Gabe, our resident attorney is right on top of this…
Gosh Gabe, we just dropped in you lap, a real issue!
Jim
I’ve read the original post and comments but don’t see a link or reference to a news article about an actual event of using power of eminent domain to turn a railroad yard over to Wal-Mart. Are we talking about nothing?
In the late 1950s the City of Los Angeles did just that. They bulldozed the thriving Mexican-American community of Chavez Ravine and gave the land to the Dodgers. Chavez Ravine had been a thriving and stable part of LA for generation, but it went under with little protest from anyone but the residents. The city promised the residents relocation but soon forgot about that.
Jack
Apparently,
Gabe can carry on about this and that, but he is restrained about the court ruling…
Jim
I think that eminent domain definitly has problems because it seems like it is used more often to steal peoples proporty than for it’s actual purpose (which is even a little bit questionable morrally because you have to take the property away from someone in order to “improve” it). That and just about anytime it is used there is the opertunity to have bad motivation behind it. I don’t think walmart would ever get away with a stunt like trying to take over a railyard because railways are an important part of the country’s economy and well it is just my opinion but walmart sucks.
I am not restrained at all: I think the opinion is horrible. I think this is one of the biggest changes in U.S. law of the last century. Roe v. Wade pails in comparison to this case. Maybe Brown v. Kansas Board of Education was bigger–but that would have eventually happened on its own anyway. This, it changes things that should have never been changed. This will destroy the fabric of communities. Property is among the core basies of Western Civilization; this turns everything on its head. I can’t say loudly enough how bad of a decision this is.
Also, your rendition of the court was impressive. However, it should be noted that Stevens is considered to be one of the most liberal judges ever to sit on the court (I am not saying that is either a bad or a good thing). Just because a Justice is appointed by a Republican or a Democrat is not necessarily a reflection on their politics. Because Justices sit for life, often their “true views” unswayed by the need to play politics come out for the first time. Stevens is a good example of that. Souter, at least on a voting record basis, is considered fairly liberal as well–but not nearly as much as Stevens.
Gabe
Looks like somebody’s not been taking their meds agains…
Here’s the link to the ruling…an interesting read. Unfortunately this puts alot a responsibility on the state courts to control this.
Not good…
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04slipopinion.html
Kelo vs. New London
How did you know I forgot to take my meds?
One problem here is the confusion between Rep/Dem and Lib/Cons. Scoop Jackson and Zell Miller were/are Dems and conservatives and Olympia Snow and Lincoln Chaffe are Republicans and liberal. There are 4 solid libs on the Supreme Court Stevens, Souter, Bryer, and Ginsberg. Half of them were appointed by Republicans as were the three solid conservatives, Scallia, Rhenquist and Thomas. O’Conner and Kennedy can go either way. You’re going to see a fight to end all fights with the probable retirement of 2 justices this summer.