Supreme Court OK's seizure of personal property

[Julee Fern]

i thought the wording in the constitution allowed seizure for public use. it's a question if using the local government is a shell game for commerical use, because obviously commercial and public use are not one in the same. a commercial entity such as land developers would be prohibied from seizing property directly from an individual. so what is being questioned is if there is a degree of laundering in which essentially the same action is occuring where the commercial land-developers uses the local government as a proxy, procedural step. we hope the court offered guidelines in which the burden is on the local government for proving the seizure benefits the public as a whole.

IMO, Walmart is commercial use.. and rarely could a seizure of private property for building a walmart and developing said supercenter comprise public use. is there a series of tests or objective means of determining this? holy sh*t, i can't believe id be siding with scalia and thomas... this is a first

here's the problem though, from what i recall from the facts of the case, the most of the development would be used for commercial purposes (pfizer research, condo developments), and only a small part could unequivocally be characterized as public use (US Coast Guard Museum).  So, if that's the case, what's to prevent a similar case in which Wal-Mart would be the primary commercial beneficiary, from being struck down by a court?  Afterall, if building a Wal-Mart is part of a city's developments plans and a convincing case could be made that having the Wal-Mart would increase the tax base, it seems to me the doctrine of eminent domain prevails based on the Kelo ruling, no?  Afterall, I've essentially substitute Pfizer for Wal-Mart.

You're completely right.  Under this ruling, anything that benefits the city, in the eyes of the city council, is considered "public use', justifying a taking. 

Kind of reminds me of Wickard.

[amarain]

People "shocked" by their agreement with Scalia et al here seem ignorant of the fact that conservatives traditionally favor individual property rights over the right of society to violate those rights for ostensible public good.  Liberals, on the other hand, are traditionally more willing to favor the sacrifice individual property rights for the ostensible public good.  This decision is fully in accord with traditional conservative/liberal values and voting patterns.  If the decision troubles you, you may want to reexamine your own values, and those of the respective parties. 

(It should be noted that all the Justices nominated by Democrats voted in favor of this ruling, and all Justices voting against it were nominated by Republicans.)

Blogger, I am aware of this. I'm not actually shocked to be in agreement with Scalia on this issue, only expressing my surprise at the fact that I have common ground with someone with whom I disagree so strongly on other issues.

The problem that I and many others like me face is finding a party that does not fall within those 'conservative/liberal' lines that you described. Where is the party or the politicians that stand up for property rights and protection of citizens' privacy as well as the right of consenting adults to do whatever they please in their own bedrooms? Who do I vote for if I believe in both the right to own a firearm as well as the right to have an abortion?

[BoscoBreaux]

I think this is horrible. A huge step backward for the rights of private citizens.

Utterly unfathomable. What policy purpose does this serve OTHER than to make those with money and power MORE POWERFUL? I, too, am shocked I agree with Scalia, but I am more shocked that Scalia didn't yet again invent constitutional protections for corporations and the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Maybe he had a change of heart.

People "shocked" by their agreement with Scalia et al here seem ignorant of the fact that conservatives traditionally favor individual property rights over the right of society to violate those rights for ostensible public good.  Liberals, on the other hand, are traditionally more willing to favor the sacrifice individual property rights for the ostensible public good.  This decision is fully in accord with traditional conservative/liberal values and voting patterns.  If the decision troubles you, you may want to reexamine your own values, and those of the respective parties.  

(It should be noted that all the Justices nominated by Democrats voted in favor of this ruling, and all Justices voting against it were nominated by Republicans.)

You have misdefined both liberals and conservatives. The difference between the two centers on the degree to which they believe government should assist those who do not benefit from the economic realities of capitalism. Liberals believe this is a major role of government, conservatives do not. That is it–-everything else is propaganda, overstatement, demonization, oversimplification, etc.
It is not inconsistent to be “liberal” (correctly defined) and to find a major problem with this ruling. In fact, Sandra Dee (moderate) largely argues from the liberal’s perspective. The decision is faulty, in my opinion, because even if you assume that Gov seizure is in the public’s best interest, it ultimately hurts individuals who it tends to help.

I am not so naive (or ignorant in your terminology) to think that Scalia’s ruling has anything to do with property rights, per se. He is not a Conservative; he is a neo-Conservative (there is more divergence between Conservatives and Neo-Cons as there is liberals and Conservatives).  Scalia’s reasoning, I suspect, has more to do with the reality that he does not want some rich guy who owns 1,000 acres of prime real estate to have his property seized to build a Wal Mart far more than his concerns for its impact on property rights.

[HippieLawChick]

I am sorry Bosco, but I am LMAO at an error in your post:

Sandra Dee: Actress and fodder for National Enquirer articles

Sandra Day O'Connor: Supreme Court Justice


Tee hee!!!!

[InVinoVeritas]

I think this is horrible. A huge step backward for the rights of private citizens.

Utterly unfathomable. What policy purpose does this serve OTHER than to make those with money and power MORE POWERFUL? I, too, am shocked I agree with Scalia, but I am more shocked that Scalia didn't yet again invent constitutional protections for corporations and the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Maybe he had a change of heart.

People "shocked" by their agreement with Scalia et al here seem ignorant of the fact that conservatives traditionally favor individual property rights over the right of society to violate those rights for ostensible public good.  Liberals, on the other hand, are traditionally more willing to favor the sacrifice individual property rights for the ostensible public good.  This decision is fully in accord with traditional conservative/liberal values and voting patterns.  If the decision troubles you, you may want to reexamine your own values, and those of the respective parties. 

(It should be noted that all the Justices nominated by Democrats voted in favor of this ruling, and all Justices voting against it were nominated by Republicans.)

i'm not ignorant of the fact at all.  i have no problem with eminent domain, per se, but i do have a problem with the decision here.  also, i probably have a slightly broader tolerance for eminent domain than either Thomas or Scalia, which is why i tend to disagree with the two more often than i agree.  also, i think it's a bit much to boil down liberal/conservative values to just the issue of individual property rights.  so while kelo troubles me, i'm fully conscious of the rest of my political/moral beliefs to know that i'm not ready to shed my traditionally liberal beliefs and proclaim my allegiance to to Rove, et. al.  My politics are much more complicated than that.

(while your statement about who nominated whom is true on its face, it should be noted that three of the justices who did comprise the majority in Kelo were in fact Republican.  so, your theory that republican nominees reflect republican values and democratic nominees reflect democratic values doesn't ring quite true. (maybe you're not even implying this at all, but that's what i'm gathering.)  Stevens was nominated by Ford, Kennedy was nominated by Reagan, and Souter was nominated by Bush Sr.)

[BoscoBreaux]

I am sorry Bosco, but I am LMAO at an error in your post:

Sandra Dee: Actress and fodder for National Enquirer articles

Sandra Day O'Connor: Supreme Court Justice


Tee hee!!!!

Actually it wasn’t an error. As a life-long Bobby Darin fan, I am fully aware of who Sandra Dee is. Perhaps my mocking tone wasn’t blatant, but I assumed that the satirical nature of my allusion to “Sandra Dee” would be recognized. For that I apologize.  For those who don’t know, the chick could hardly be one to defend liberals–a description that applies to both.

[ViagraSaint]

anyone coming from a third world country recognizes the role of corruption and how money buys justice.  individual rights mean nothing.  In this regard, the principle of capitalism applies to every level, including the law.  this is the distinction of the US versus other countries, IMO. the history of the judiciary to protect individual rights with a reasonable balance against the wills of the majority (civil rights), the wealthy, or against the state.

while economic good may be argued as public good, it is this same principle when the influence of wealthy and politically powerful is introduced that is one of the sole reasons 3rd world countries remain in the state they do.

end slippery slobe argument.

[Intuition]

The best answer is for states to enact laws that prohibit cases like this. I know Florida already has a law which limits the use of eminent domain to seize land. I believe several other states have similar laws.

In a legal sense, this decision makes sense. Read the decision, read the cases it references. Economic improvement is a reasonable public use of land.


Of course, the smart thing would be for the owners to just sell to the developers anyway. I will almost guarantee that the developers will pay more for the land directly than if the local government invokes eminent domain.

[jwilcox1024]

The best answer is for states to enact laws that prohibit cases like this. I know Florida already has a law which limits the use of eminent domain to seize land. I believe several other states have similar laws.

In a legal sense, this decision makes sense. Read the decision, read the cases it references. Economic improvement is a reasonable public use of land.


Of course, the smart thing would be for the owners to just sell to the developers anyway. I will almost guarantee that the developers will pay more for the land directly than if the local government invokes eminent domain.

After Kelo you are probably right that a owner should sell ASAP. Before Kelo you might not want to sell because you really believed the taking of your property wasn't proper and no amount of money (or at least no amount that wasn't stratospheric) would make it worthwhile for you to move. I also wonder how much incentive developers will have to bargain in good faith after Kelo. If you know the gov't could seize the property with few roadblocks and sell the land to you at a lower rate, what incentive do you have to come up with a more expensive deal bargained with the land owner?

[BoscoBreaux]

In a legal sense, this decision makes sense. Read the decision, read the cases it references. Economic improvement is a reasonable public use of land.


Of course, the smart thing would be for the owners to just sell to the developers anyway. I will almost guarantee that the developers will pay more for the land directly than if the local government invokes eminent domain.

Of course, any decision can be justified in any way by any court by referencing cases which, they argue, are binding to the case. Of course, there are dozens of other cases that could be cited to lead one to believe that the minority opinion "makes sense" from a common law or Constitutional perspective.

If economic concerns govern who can own property and who can't, it has potentially scary results. For example, lets say you own 10 acres in Napa, California, on which you plant maybe 80 acres of Gamay grapes. Let's say that Constellation Brands wants to start a winery on that land and uproot your vines and instead plant Cabernet Sauvignon grapes. According to this ruling, the Government can seize your property and let the corporation use it for its commercial venture which it believes will be more profitable, and hence more profitable in regard to tax revenues. Because there is no land of that size available (normally) in Napa, you have to leave the town, lest you wish to rent a house on apartment on no acreage.

How about a church? Certainly they aren't profitable, and a McDonalds would yeild far more tax revenues on the land. What if that is part of the Government's economic revitalization plan for the area?  Should the Government be able to raze a church to squeeze some money out of the land?