YOU are EVICTED!!
Last week the Supreme Court made its most insane, twisted, stupid decision ever. Sometimes too many law degrees and court case histories can cloud the vision and make it hard to see something that a 6-year-old could easily grasp.
The property rights case (which had been pending for several months) finally got decided last week. And five out of the nine justices decided that you can be evicted from your own home.
If a developer wants to build a hotel or office building or a house that’s bigger than yours — Goodbye. It’s been nice having you here; run along now. If a wealthier person is able to do something more lucrative with your property, this constitutes “public use,” same as a freeway or national park.
Yes, I’m aware that it was the liberal justices who came up with this “reasoning.” But let’s not turn this bipartisan issue into a pissing contest. Everyone is shocked and revolted by this ruling. Liberals siding up with a wealthy developer against a working-class homeowner? Don’t think so. This is probably the most unanimous issue to come along in decades. It’s time for We The People to do what we have to do.
I first read about this New London case a year or two ago. I took it about as seriously as you'd take someone wearing a tinfoil hat and warning about Martians attacking. I just assumed that as soon as this case reached a judge who had two brain cells to rub together the case would be dismissed and ridiculed and that would be the end of it.
Currently eight states have laws forbidding abuse of Eminent Domain (Washington is one of them, thank God). The other 42 states need to see the writing on the wall NOW. We need state laws to protect homeowners against influential developers working hand-in-glove with sleazy government officials. Or, maybe our coin-operated Congress would pass a federal law preventing developers from seizing people’s homes — hahahahahaha! Riiight.
State legislatures that don’t pass such a law will be embarrassed and humiliated when an identical iniative goes on the state ballot and gets passed ten to one.
Poetic Justice: The town of Weare, New Hampshire, where Justice David Souter lives, might actually seize his house and build a hotel on "his" property. A nice hotel would bring in a lot more tax revenue than David Souter’s house. Certainly that’s what Justice Souter would want; he said so.
You can also join the Castle Coalition if you want to fight this trend of government property seizures. Thanks to The Will To Exist for showing this link.
posted by Tom Harper @ 11:32 AM
14 Comments:
When the courts make the law and stop reading the constitution we have no more freedoms in America. Just reading the third and fifth amendments regarding private property tell us this decision was wrong.
Let's see...there are nine Supreme Court justices...
Marx Brothers plus Three Stooges plus...hmmm...Abbot and Costello...that probably would have been a better court, on balance.
Must everyone be bought? *shaking head in disappointment and disgust*
Jake: This decision was definitely wrong. I hope there's a huge backlash. There's got to be.
I.M. Dedd: Don't forget Kramer.
Kevin: I can't fathom it either. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Sar: Surely you don't need to ask that :)
Trevor: Thanks. I like your site a lot. I have some Libertarian leanings, but I also favor a lot of today's social and environmental programs. I know it's contradictory -- I'm trying to work that out and come up with something coherent. Big Brother has gotten too big and that problem might start to outweigh the need for social programs.
We disagree on a lot of things...here we are on common ground. Sometimes nothing makes sense in Washington D.C.
That grinding sound you hear is the gears of backroom dealing. In my little town, developers pretty much own the city council, so I can't wait to see who gets evicted first from prime riverfront proppa-tay.
Web_Loafer: This is definitely one of those consensus issues where people of all viewpoints should be furious.
Brother Kenya: I remember from another comment section that you mentioned living in Sonoma County. (I lived in Forestville until ten months ago when we moved up here.) If we were still in Sonoma County I think I'd be standing out in front of our house with a baseball bat 24/7.
It's scary how fast that whole county is growing and gentrifying. Forestville has mutated from a funky little river town to a miniature Beverly Hills. It was bad enough when the grapegrowers were threatening to spray every square inch of West County if the Glassywinged Sharpshooter arrived. Now every house could be a potential bed and breakfast or a wine-tasting room; every neighborhood is a potential luxury hotel or office park.
This ruling will probably instigate more civil unrest than any event in the past few decades.
So much for Bush's "Ownership" society bull****! I love the thing about Judge Souter's property. Now, if we could go after George and Dick's ranches. We could make them into camps for innercity kids or something. We could use them to put senile Supreme Court Judges out to pasture.
Kitchen Window Woman: Yeah, that would be poetic all right, confiscating Bush's and Cheney's properties. I'm sure Souter had no idea this could come back to bite him. Sometimes even the top government officials are subject to the laws they pass. Too bad it doesn't happen more often.
Well, almost everybody is revolted by this decision. The New York Times really, really likes it. Of course, they should...since they recently used eminent domain in order to build a headquarters for themselves. It would be a little hypocritical for them to now say that they hate it.
Yes, I am aware that Bush used ED to build a ballpark for the team that he once owned. He was as wrong as the New York Times.
Craig: I didn't know the NY Times was in favor of the decision, or that they used ED for their new headquarters. Well, maybe some of the senior executives and editors of NYT could get the Souter treatment and have their homes confiscated to make way for a hotel or luxury apartment building. (I couldn't tell how much of that story was tongue-in-cheek and how much was for real; if it's true it couldn't happen to a nicer person.)
OK Democrat: That would be poetic all right. Not just those 5 justices, but every lower-ranking federal and state judge that enabled this case to even get to the Supreme Court. This is insane.
Social conservative here...equally outraged over this court decision. Unreal. Have you read any Richard Maybury?
Post a Comment
<< Home