Supreme Court ruling on land owners

[GernBlansten]

I spun this off the flag thread because I thought it deserves its own debate.

This one hit home. In Colorado, a developer is attempting to build a superhighway east of Denver. It will be a private toll highway with railway in the middle. It is proposed to go straight through the BSA Peaceful Valley Scout Ranch. The developer is using old mining statues to condemn the property. So far, he has been shot down by the state, but this case might just give him the push to put the road in.

 

As Al Czervik in Caddyshack so aptly said, "Golf courses and cemetarys are the biggest waste of land". Just add scout camps to that.

[Eagle1973]

It's very scary. I have a friend that owns a very choice piece of property at a very budy intersection. She runs a small tack shop, she thought she was sitting pretty because the land is prob worth close to a million bucks. It's been in the family since the major intersection was two dirt roads... Now, the city can just take it for a gas station or 7-11...

 

Way back when, my council sold our camp for a development, got top dollar, we hated them for doing so, but hindsight 30 years later said they had good foresight...(This message has been edited by Eagle1973)

[Kahuna]

I haven't read the opinion, but I know it was 5-4. Even O'conner didn't go for it. I just don't see our property rights protection under the 5th Amendment and the Constitution in general can permit government to take private land for purely monetary reasons: eg, they can earn more in tax revenues. Pathetic. Favors the rich over the poor, the influential over the everyday guy and gives the government more power that it doesn't frapping need. We have probably two SC vacancies coming up this summer. I hope the President has some people lined up who can find their fannies with both hands. God knows we need 'em.

 

I'm disgusted!

 

 

 

[GernBlansten]

What's facinating is this is typically a left/right issue. The justices who typically would be lefties, voted pro-business. The justices who are typically righties, voted for the people. Reversed roles a bit.

[frank10]

How long before some one notices that we have a whole lot of tax free churches right down town and ask the question "couldn't we close just one"...(This message has been edited by wingnut)

[Bob White]

What is more interesting was that conservatives continued to support thr rights of the individual over the governement and the liberals who say they are for the "little people" voted to allow profiteers to take their homes away with the help of the government.

 

"Any government able to give you everything you need, will be able to take everything from you." Thomas Jefferson

[SemperParatus]

Press Release

For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media

For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

 

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

 

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

 

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

 

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

 

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Caf" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

 

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

 

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

 

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

For those of you making a liberal/conservative distinction on this issue, first of all, those labels are very imprecise and could be a matter for debate. But the main thing I want to say is that the 5-member majority included Justice Kennedy, who (if we insist on labeling people) is a conservative and a Reagan appointee. So this expansion of government power would not have been approved without a coalition of "liberal", "moderate" and "conservative" justices agreeing to it. (In the "moderate" group I include Justice Breyer, who really is not a liberal, and possibly also Justice Souter, though I suppose it would be fair to call him a "liberal.")

 

I also get some amusement from the constant hand-wringing over so-called "liberal" decisions being made by a Court in which 6 of the 9 members were appointed by Presidents Reagan and Bush (the father.) In fact 7 of 9 (calm down Star Trek fans) were appointed by Republicans but I suppose Gerald Ford doesn't count, in today's world he would have no chance at being a Republican nominee for national office.

[NJCubScouter]

I realized there may be some of you out there who are not necessarily legal and/or politics buffs and could therefore use a "scorecard" of justices appointed by each president, so as a public service, here is one:

 

Gerald Ford ®: John Paul Stevens (1)

 

Ronald Reagan ®: Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist (4) (Rehnquist was appointed an Associate Justice by Nixon in the early 70's and as Chief Justice by Reagan.)

 

George H.W. Bush ®: David Souter, Clarence Thomas (2)

 

Bill Clinton (D): Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg

[Torveaux]

Why yes, I am a politics buff.

 

I would agree that the regular labels do not apply in many situations. The real difference among Supreme Court Justices is between those who see their roles as upholding the Constitution, regardless of their personal opinions and those who see their role as one of modifier of the Constitution to suit their individual beliefs.

 

The other significant factor that is not here regarding the current court is the fact that most of them had to be confirmed by decidedly Liberal Senates. Ford had absolutely no political captial with which to appoint a conservative, even if he was so inclined. Bush 41 had Democrat majorities of 54 and 56. His popularity after the 1st Gulf War is the only reason that Thomas got through. Both of Clinton's appointees were confirmed before the Senate changed control in 1995.

 

Kennedy's position on this case was that it belongs in the hands of the states. He has been fairly consistent in his pro-state view on the Constitution, even when it is otherwise troublesome for him personally.

 

While I abhor the decision on the one hand, Justice Kennedy does have a good point that the states themselves should be protecting their citizens, not the federal government.

[frankj]

I'd like to reply to what GernBlansten wrote.

 

"The justices who typically would be lefties, voted pro-business. The justices who are typically righties, voted for the people."

 

The "leftie judges" voted PRO-GOVERNMENT, not necessarily pro-business. I say this because the carrot held out by the developer in front of the governmental entity is increased tax revenues. The main mission of a bureaucracy is survival and expansion. This is one more means by which government can fulfill its mission.

 

I read part of my son's US History textbook this past school year. In the section devoted to the Constitution (the drafting of) and events leading up to it, the textbook made it very clear as to the amount of debate and tension over the power of the federal government and the states. To read today's headlines you would never guess this was such an issue at the time of our country's founding.

 

[NJCubScouter]

Torveaux says:

 

The real difference among Supreme Court Justices is between those who see their roles as upholding the Constitution, regardless of their personal opinions...

 

Oh, really? You think there are justices who do not let their personal opinions influence their interpretation of the Constitution? Which ones are they?

[berkshirescouter]

There is some interesting history on how cities have used this power. As I understand it The area where the World Trade Center stood, was cleared using this power. The building was owned by the Port Authority but leased to a developer.

 

My father-in-law had a business in Rochester NY. The city used this power to buy his building and tear it down for an Industrial Park. He had 20 employees. Too small for the park. They forced him to move buy a new building with a mortgage. His business went under 10 years later, maybe because of the move maybe not, however the Park was never built and now 20 people are out of work.

The moral of the story is If they build they may still not come. This method does not always work.

 

[Kahuna]

Just a couple of observations about Supreme Court Justices. Liberal and conservative don't matter much, because many justices start out as more or less strict constructionists (that is, they believe the Constitution means what it says and shouldn't be interpreted according to the political beliefs of the Court), but as time goes on, they are influenced by the atmosphere inside the Beltway and start listening all the Great Ideas floating around. Another factor is intelligence. Many smart nominees have been "Borked," notoriously of course, Judge Bork, one of the smartest nominees ever, because they had too much of a track record and made some elements nervous. Therefore, it's much easier to get a less intelligent individual on the Court. A real shame. Of course, at the moment, politics has reared it's even uglier than usual head because the Democrats want to block the President from getting anything he wants, no matter what it is.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Hi Kahuna,

 

Normally, I agree with what you have to say in these discussions, but I have to take issue with a couple of your points here.

 

One, I don't think that having an extremely bright judge on the Supreme Court is mutually exclusive with that person being objective in their views. The problem, I think, is that Presidents routinely try to load the Court with judges that back their views; they're not looking for objective Justices. We need Justices that can look beyond their own personal views and do a creditable job of interpreting law. Bork got "Borked" because he was so outspoken in his views that I don't think anyone believed that he could objectively view the cases brought before him.

 

Two, I'd have to take issue with a blanket statement that the Democrats are blocking everything the President wants, not matter what it is. They voted to give him his war, didn't they? The vast majority of his judicial candidates have been approved. In this latest go around involving the "nuclear option", the candidates had already been "not approved" in a previous go around and a good case could be made that the President renominated them purely to cause a political battle. I find it hard to believe that there aren't other worthwhile candidates out there than both parties could agree on. In regards to the candidate for the U.N., the guy has a lot of baggage, and the President has refused to provide any information requested by the Democrats to resolve their concerns.

 

Is there political infighting going on? You betcha. Is it just on the side of the Democrats? Don't think so. The Republicans are playing games every bit as much as the Democrats. In the Senate, for example, we probably would have had a compromise on the "nuclear option" a lot sooner if Frist had spent a little more time being a Senator and a little less time running for President.

 

Hey, as an aside, would you happen to know if the Coco Palms Hotel on Kauai ever re-opened after the hurricane several years ago? It's the place where the chapel from Elvis' "Blue Hawaii" is at, and I've been lucky enough to stay there twice. Just curious.