How many of you upset about the SC decision have read it?

[Hamlette]

It doesn't do what you and freepers say it does. After reading the decision I'm shocked by the response here.

This case is nothing more than an interpretation around the edges of a basic tenent of our society. Private property rights are not supreme. The best interests of all the people are. Think of this next time you want to prevent a land owner from a use you oppose, like killing endangered species on his or her land. This decision is in that line of legal reasoning.

Truth be known, we should all give our land back to Native Americans.

[samsingh]

1. that's what i thought.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

2. Bless you, bless you, bless you

I exhausted myself yesterday trying to get people to read the decision.

The outrage here shocked me, too. All that anger, cries for impeachment, demanding this and that, all while a few lawyers here tried to explain to people that a simple reading of the opinion would assuage them.

Nope.

Ignorance was a lot more fun, and acting out was a lot more rewarding. Lots of namecalling, too, when someone tried to point out what was obvious - if you read it.

This opinion just codifies what we've done to poor people and now makes it a realistic scenario for the middle class. And the middle class doesn't like it - see, it's ok for the poor, and, well, the Native Americans, that was so long ago, but US???

Not the finest example of open minds I've seen on DU.

[shoelace414]

3. I keep saying

Congress can pass a law changing emmiment domain, why don't they?

[patcox2]

18. No they cant, but the states can.

And the decision only applies in those states with laws similar to Massachusets law, not every state allows what Mass allows anyway.

[shoelace414]

19. why don't they try?

put that on the neck of the republicans.

[seabeyond]

4. i have to admit, i didnt read, didnt even go into threads last nite

husband said soemthing when he came home and he gave me those talking points. it was that point i went into threads and listened to posters.

thank you for clarifying, i will read. so i dont spout off what doesnt need to be, and helps the repugs

[Verve]

5. Agree with you as long as the powerful don't abuse this for their personal

gain. That is what is troublesome.

I can just see poor, elderly homeowners that have lived on their property for decades having their homes taken away from them for the good of a casino.

It could happen. And now it'll happen more often.

[brainshrub]

6. I hate to admit it: I haven't read the ruling yet.

I'm so ashamed. I just behaved like a Freeper.

I'll read the ruling the moment I get a chance to, and refrain from commenting on it until then.

[Coexist]

8. ::::sheepishly::::::: me, too.

I don't understand where the boundaries would be for this though, who decides what is in the best interest of the community? The local city council?

[Tux]

7. Provide link

If you're going to bitch about people not reading it.

It's all good till a libertarian loses their home.

[Hamlette]

11. ahem...here's the link

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108&friend=nytimes

I would add, in my defense since your request was less than gracious, that there were dozens of links on here yesterday. That's when I read it.

But, I googled it just for you.

[ellenfl]

9. so tell us how you interpret it? eom

[Hamlette]

16. here's my read

1. eminent domain has been around forever. No one argues with that. If the state needs land for a public use, it can take it. (Can you imagine what our roads would look like without it? Or if we had to buy that land in the "open" market and someone wanted to hold us hostage for big bucks?)

2. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from taking from us except for the public use. There are tons of cases in every state deciding what is public use.

3. Here, the city found the neighborhood to be blighted (sort of) and made plans for a redevelopment of the area including public space.

4. The supreme court said yesterday (as courts have held before) not all of the land taken has to be open to the public or used by the public but rather the term is public use so the government must show a benefit to the public. Here's a quote:

"The city's determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development."

There is an area in my city what was redeveloped...several actually. Having lived here for 50 years I can tell you, those areas are so much better now. They were not all given over to big companies, in some the flavor was preserved by turning wearhouses into artist lofts.

What the conservatives want is to say private land is sacred. That is a MUCH worse proposition if you think of this in a different context like when private property owners pollute etc.

Remember too, these people will be given market value for their homes.

[Walt Starr]

21. Market value as determined by the city

not the market.

[Lexingtonian]

10. fetishism of real estate

It's all people who have bought into the 'traditional', e.g. medieval British feudal agrarian age, concept of land and ownership aka 'property'. It existed and was taken to absolutist extremes because the nobility disappropriated land willy nilly at the time.

It's a latent conservative/reactionary dogma a lot of Americans hold. The opposing concept is 'stewardship'.

I call it fetishism because that's what it is: people consider a piece of material- real estate- their identity.

I like the headline someone at dKos put on the news of this yesterday: "Supreme Court Rules Against Property Absolutists"- I think that's the succinctest way of putting it all.

[Walt Starr]

12. I've read it. Every word

The dissent by O'Connor was spot on. I am ashamed to even be considered to be politically aligned with the five idiots who voted in favor of this ruling. It's abominable and should be overturned. I will be paying very close attention to all future SCOTUS nominees WRT this ruling. If they faovr, I oppse them. If they oppose it, I will contact my Senators offering my support for their nomination.

[orwell]

13. Own Home

I haven't read the decision so I won't comment on it other than my initial knee jerk was not positive.

That being said, it is hard to understand how anyone thinks that they "own" their property. They have never owned it. The effectively "lease it" from the state with full rights of lease transfer.

As proof, try not paying your property taxes and see what happens. "Your" property will be quickly "appropriated" by the state.

So do you really "own" it?

[AlCzervik]

14. and the city decided this after it took 70million from the state

(b) The city's determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the plan's comprehensive character, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of this Court's review in such cases, it is appropriate here, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment. P. 13.

[Walt Starr]

15. Read the dissent, the arguments against are much better. n/t

[bluestateguy]

17. It was a bad decison

The fact that the liberal judges ruled that way does not change that for me. Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and O'Connor were right.

This is not what the framers had in mind in writing the eminent domain clause. Public use does not mean a transfer of ownership of private property that is justified as somehow being in the public interest (like a ballpark, a Wal Mart or a luxury apartment complex).

If that's what New London wants to do, then they can negotiate settlements with all of the property owners. If they won't sell, than that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

[ComerPerro]

20. Good take on it

Thank you!