News-Record.com

You can bet this will never happen to any member of the Supreme Court or anyone who can buy their way out of it. This new law has far worse implications and intentions than the need for another Starbucks. When they were able to strap us in our cars, (local, state or federal) I knew we were going to be taken for a long ride. That belt is their very hand on you.

Just because a SC justice decides a certain way on a case doesn't mean he has to like it; it just means he believes that the language of the Constitution points in that direction. Here, they are saying that taking land for a private enterprise that serves the public good in some way falls within the limited definition of eminent domain present in the Constitution.

Good luck finding anyone on either side of the aisle who thinks the government ought to be able to take someone's land to put up a Wal-Mart (outside of the government or Wal-Mart, that is). This is what the amendment process should be for--to clarify certain things that the founding fathers would never have envisioned. (Instead, it's used to score political points via flag burning and gay marriage.)

Deciding that the Constitution says something it doesn't just because you prefer the outcome that way is a pretty good definition of judicial activism, something those who support the conservative wing of the court are often railing against. I guess when they say "activist judges", what they mean is "judges who make decisions I don't like".

This decision just proves to me it's time for another revolution in this country. The tyranny we fought against the first time is has been replaced by tyrants in our own government and the corporations backing them.
Make no mistake, the developers are licking their chops and so are their paid hands in government.

I couldn't agree more, Jay.

My understanding of this SC decision was that the individual states could make imminent domain laws and the fed had no constitutional right to over-ride these state laws. If that's the case there was no judicial activism just the contrary.

Steve,

The day after the decision, some group sent a letter to the mayor (I think) of the city that David Souter lives in asking for condemnation of Souter's house by eminant domain so that they could build a hotel. The justification was that the hotel would have historical significance since Souter ruled in favor of this type of action and that the hotel would provide more taxes to the community.

I can't find the link, but if I do locate it, I will post it.

What a great zinger!

Yellowdog, The states can make their own imminent domain law,but why should they? They are a minature federsl state. With the greedy county commisioners hiking their own pay last week, that money has to come from somewhere. If they decide that a starbucks or a McDonalds will generate more tax $ than your property taxes, hasta la vista baby.

Mad Dog
A business man is looking to by the house to build a hotel there in direct connection to this decision. He said(on CNN) he had over 400,000 hits on his web site and was even pledged 1 million dollars for the cause.
How long before the other 4 are hit?

Where can I donate?

You can read about the bid to get Souter's property in this article.

There's also a site where you can pledge to spend a week at the hotel, to be called the Lost Liberty Hotel. Click here to check it out or sign up yourself.
I was number 15 to sign the pledge a couple of days ago. It's up to 967 signatures right now and it grows by the hour. The comments are interesting as well.

Gotta love Libby! (and Libba Hinkle).

I also hate the decision....(do you hear a BUT coming) but, I can see, in some very rare circumstances that it might be feasible to do so.

HOWEVER, what the court should say is that in cases like this, the new property owners should have to pay at least one and a half times the real value of the property AND pay them 10% of the new tax revenue generated from that property over the next 25 years.

Folks who have their property taken for roads and whatnot are due "compensation" according to the Constitution. I hate this ruling but the biggest problem is the definition of compensation. Make it possible IF you must- but also make it VERY profitable for the victim.

Otherwise, this is the very reason why we have the right to bear arms- government intrusion. If the county tries to take my property at minimal costs- I'm buying a small arsenal. Make me a sweet offer... well, hey, isn't that the American way?

I heard what YellowDog heard: This is up to the individual states to change - and I also heard that the reason it was unanamious (spelling) is because it only validates decades old law.

We need to "motivate" our local "leaders"

Thanks for the compliment Steve. Long live Libba.