June 23, 2005, The Quicker Picker Upper
Honestly, I have no idea what being a liberal means anymore. Of course, I never had a clue where Justice Anthony Kennedy stood on anything, other than, I suppose, on the wrong side of just about anything important, from Bush v. Gore, to Padilla v. Rumsfeld, and now finally, to the current outrage, " Kelo v. City of New London, in which a 5-4 Supreme Court majority basically re-defined "public purpose" in matters of condemnation to be "anything that someone powerful enough to get state or municipal officials to do for private benefit that might increase the tax base".
Its understood, of course, that if my house lies in the path of the intended expansion of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, my house is probably going to be leveled. Ah, but it also means that if Bruce Ratner's plans to build a basketball arena and commercial properties for his private benefit, though the City will get "boosterism" rights and higher tax revenues, and my house lies in the path of that project, the city and state may level my house as well.
This is fascinating, actually. It should come as no surprise that the defenders of "economic freedom" are... Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O'Connor; Kennedy is a tad surprising, but then, as noted above, we can safely say that he is just universally wrong (even in cases the Court rules 9-0, we must now question the overall wisdom).
Essentially, what the City of New London proposed doing was knocking down a lower income neighborhood (not a classic "slum"; just an old line working class neighborhood) for some fancy schmancy commercial development which would profit a private party, though increase the City's tax base. Not to expand City Hall. Not to build a school or a park or a water pipeline. No. Property owners can lose the house they grew up in because someone else is powerful enough to get the government to condemn your property for his private benefit.
Simple as that. You see, the Supreme Court believed that the powerful aren't powerful enough: once in a while, they see a nice choice piece of property in the way of their development plans, and those irritating rightful owners refuse to sell quickly or cheaply enough... best call City Hall and get those irritating proletarians to move (damn them).
Frankly, the powerful have too much influence as things already stand. This peculiar ability-- public condemnation for private benefit-- is something that the courts are supposed to protect us from. As usual, the Court held in favor of the powerful. That's what it does, I guess. Its a perverse world where the "champions of state's rights" are now the liberals. Strange world. But the State knows best. Best get used to it.
Comments
Of course, this is not as outrageous as Rumsfield warning the governments of Syria and Iran to stop allowing insurgents into Iraq, yet omitting Saudi Arabia from the list.
Posted by Artie Outrage at June 24, 2005 9:12 AM
...and back to the point. Y'know, when I first read the headline yesterday I thought "those dirty winger bastards; stealing our rights to the benefit of big business again"...and then I finished the article and say who voted how. It's a good thing I sit down when I do this stuff, because that was another example of how I may well have fallen and hurt myself; it wasn't the wingers, it was the supposed "liberals" that pulled this stunt. Like I said over at my place, we now only have personal property rights to the extent of the quality, quantity, and caliber of our automatic assault weapons and those rights only extend as far as our ammo holds out. The bar the state has to hurdle to prove 'public benefit' for eminent domain hasn't been lowered; it's been pulled off the stanchions...
Posted by Jack K. at June 24, 2005 10:48 AM
You see the overall strategy, don't you? The ultra rich own everything and the rest of us are to be crowded into the cities paying rent to...the ultra rich. This is the "ownership society". What, you thought that meant YOU were ever going to own a place? BWAHAHAHAHAHA... :-0
Posted by Jeremiad Screamer at June 24, 2005 3:55 PM
It's no surprise that this decision comes down the same week as dad's new movie. Yes, we are truly headed to the "Land of the Dead."
Posted by George Romero Jr. at June 24, 2005 6:39 PM
Very poorly thought out decision by the majority and O'Connor's dissent is spot on. But she was not always so wise: this was foreshadowed by O'Connor's own very poor (8-0) opinion in HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY v. MIDKIFF
467 U.S. 229 (1984). Read it and weep. Private property from 72 owners in Hawaii forced to be sold.
Still, this was worse and I did not anticipate the way this wone would break.
djmm
Posted by djmm at June 24, 2005 7:30 PM
Errr... "one would break"
(Sorry!)
djmm
Posted by djmm at June 24, 2005 7:31 PM
If the SCOTUS' assualt on medical weed last week were the harbinger of a continued assault on Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, then this is the harbinger of...?
Didn't 'yawl just have a dustup out there over a football stadium or some such nonsense?
Posted by Thomas Ware at June 25, 2005 12:27 PM
It's like I told you last night, if I get called "a Republican" just because I like to be organized and sort out my blogroll by gender and interest, all labels are hereby up for grabs. :)
Posted by Elayne Riggs at June 25, 2005 1:22 PM