Supreme Court Makes Ruling on Eminent Domain Issue

[Kev]

Okay the big cases to look at are Berman v. Parker and the 1981 Poletown case.

EDIT: I added some links to articles about each case.

g0zen, what was the case that took place on the Pacific (can't remember if it was in Washington, Oregon, or California), where some lower branch of government (either local or state level) wanted to take a part of this lady's property for a bike trail or lane, or something along those lines? The branch of government stated that their intent was for commute alternatives. I can't remember what one it was, but if I recall correctly, the Supreme Court ruled in her favor... ring any bells, hopefully?

[RedCoKid]

The Democrats on the court voted 'for' it.

[galvatron]

The Democrats on the court voted 'for' it.

Not surprising...the conservatives are typically the ones that have a strict interpretation of the constitution. I almost always agree with Justice Scalia and this is no exception.

[g0zen]

g0zen, what was the case that took place on the Pacific (can't remember if it was in Washington, Oregon, or California), where some lower branch of government (either local or state level) wanted to take a part of this lady's property for a bike trail or lane, or something along those lines? The branch of government stated that their intent was for commute alternatives. I can't remember what one it was, but if I recall correctly, the Supreme Court ruled in her favor... ring any bells, hopefully?

I can't seem to find the one you're talking about, but here's a good one that's happening this year and I don't think has been decided upon yet Kelo, Susette, et al. v. New London, CT, et al, the view of the article is biased since it's done by a legal PAC that I think is reprensenting her, but from that site you can D/L the transcript of the arguments both sides made before the Supreme Court this year.

Also, you can see all the legal briefs of important eminent domain cases here.

For some good eminent domain reading, D/L the .pdf of Public Power, Private Gain.

EDIT: LOL, I'm an idiot, that's the case that was decided today. I'm not going to edit out my stupidty, I was so busy digging up good eminent domain resources I forgot to actually read the article.

[Diff-chan]

EDIT: LOL, I'm an idiot, that's the case that was decided today. I'm not going to edit out my stupidty, I was so busy digging up good eminent domain resources I forgot to actually read the article.

lols, while I was reading your post I was like thats the decision.

And johnk made a post in his other thread about "newly-appointed pro-business judges". Id love for him to clarify what he was talking about. There hasnt been a new justice in over a decade, and he dissented.

[johnk_]

yea, nevermind that.. I underestimated how slowly the government moves and confused the nominees with the justices already in the SC.

In that case I'm really suprised by the decision.

[Diff-chan]

There are no nominees, that process doesnt begin until a justice retires or dies. There was a recent political fight over federal court nominees but that has nothing to do with the Supreme Court (except as a prelude to what is gonna happen).

But as this case has shown, the political views of the judges doesnt necessarilly matter, nor should it.

[1CCOSA]

Criminy, that is BAD news. Talk about taking away property owners' rights. Guess the only way you are safe now is if you own private property.

[johnk_]

To be fair, the constitution says nothing about private property taken for private use, but it really just doesn't feel right.

So apparently this is just a way of interpreting the constitution, but it also sets up kind of a scary precedent.

[Master]

Moved.