The SCOTUS ruling was 5-4: What the dissenters had to say

[cynatnite]

(this is a .pdf file of the decision)
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf

From Justice O' Conner:

Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded—i.e., given to an owner whowill use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public—in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

Justice Thomas says:
I cannot agree. If such “economic development” takings are for a “public use,” any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as JUSTICE O’CONNOR powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 1–2, 8–13. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court’s error runs deeper than this. Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing
the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In myview, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government’s eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause’s original meaning, and I would reconsider them.

[Rex]

1. They fucked the people in 2000.

They continue to do so in 2005.

[Luminous Animal]

3. Well

It was the "liberals" on the court who wrote the eminant domain decision and the "conservatives" who dissented.

[cynatnite]

4. Well, this goes to show that sometimes agreement can be found

in places it's least expected.

I never thought I'd ever agree with Thomas on anything.

[cprise]

5. Agreement with whom?

The portion of DUers who lost too many brain cells from exposure to lead paint?

[jody]

2. More power to corporations and the few who control them

KELO ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON ET AL
QUOTE
Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized. See, e.g., Berman, 348 U. S., at 24. Also rejected is petitioners’ argument that for takings of this kind the Court should require a “reasonable certainty” that the expected public benefits will actually accrue. Such a rule would represent an even greater departure from the Court’s precedent. E.g., Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 242. The disadvantages of a heightened form of review are especially pronounced in this type of case, where orderly implementation of a comprehensive plan requires all interested parties’ legal rights to be established before new construction can commence. The Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan. Berman, 348 U. S., at 26. Pp. 13–20.
UNQUOTE

The court held that “Promoting economic development” is a “public purpose” and governments are not required to show a “reasonable certainty” that expected public benefits will accrue.

SCOTUS opened the door to the chicken house and GOP foxes can now steal at random unhampered by our judicial system. Another positive step toward a plutocracy of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation.

ON EDIT ADD
It's not surprising that Justices O’Connor, Renquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented. Under a local government controlled by the people, the people could use this case to justify taking private property such as manufacturing plants and pay a price determined to be just compensation.

[cprise]

7. This is over-emotional BS

If people don't want to keep tabs on the goals of their city councilmen then they can expect this kind of eminent domain abuse. It is no different than how other Constitutional rights are sometimes abused.

Your ire is misdirected at SCOTUS in this case. It belongs with the New London city council, who I suspect will receive punishment for this from voters.

[jody]

8. I see that we disagree. Did you read the decision? n/t

[Ilsa]

6. Freepers hate the decision also:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1429268/posts

They're even more upset that three of the five who voted for this were nominated by Republican pres.

[Tommymac]

9. Hmmm, Reverse Result intended?

Do you think the liberal justices may be trying to torpedo the neocons from within by writing opinions that favor the worst excesses of the neocon agenda thereby enraging EVERYBODY, Conservatives and liberal alike?

We don't have the numbers to win by ourselves...so if you can't beat 'em, 'join em".

Sometimes you have to appear to lose to win....:evilgrin: