Comments: SCOTUS says cities can take your home -- and you can't do a bloody thing about it

Correction: Clarence Thomas was NOT part of the dissenting opinion:

(from the linked article) "Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the court's majority, which also included Rehnquist, Scalia, Souter and Thomas. Dissenting were Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and O'Connor."

Posted by Odd Brian at June 23, 2005 02:17 PM


Thomas DID write his own dissent (as noted at and elsewhere)

Thomas filed a separate opinion to argue that seizing homes for private development, even with “just compensation,” is unconstitutional.

“The consequences of today’s decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful,” Thomas wrote. “So-called ’urban renewal’ programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted.”

Posted by Michael at June 23, 2005 02:35 PM

So, the government will decide if you or someone else uses the property based on how much revenue you or someone else can generate from that property. Isn't that sharecropping?

Posted by Todd at June 23, 2005 09:01 PM

This may be the thing which finally galvinizes folks to some sort of it referendum, massive turnouts to call for removing justices (along with a Senator whose last name begins with Durb and ends with in), and who knows what else. But short of that, what can be done...that doesn't come across as either too reactionary-by the powers that be, or casues a bunch of potential "Ruby Ridges" to happen as home owners start taking the law into their own hands. Or will we in the end be a nation of sheep after all.

Posted by Guy S at June 23, 2005 09:26 PM

Well, thankfully I stand corrected. I'm glad to see that Thomas was in the dissent. I was getting my information from the link that you provided, which was apparently corrected this morning.

I was interested to see how the decision broke down along president appointed lines. Majority: 1-Ford, 1-Reagan, 1-Bush, 2-Clinton. Minority 2-Reagan, 2-Bush.

Posted by Odd Brian at June 24, 2005 11:05 AM

As far as I can see from reading the decision, it doesn't limit property as only real estate, too.
This is very bad.

Posted by Fausta at June 25, 2005 12:23 PM

This is an issue that should unite all principled liberals and conservatives, as well as any American who believes in the Constitution. The task at hand is to mobilize pressure for immediate state and local legislation regarding eminent domain to specificly exclude economic development or tax farming from the definition of public use.

Posted by elgodosimp at June 26, 2005 10:27 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?