Private Property is Theft. The market can't plan progress, only central authority can. We hate Big Business, unless it is in league with Central Authority. You can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs. Land belongs to everyone, therefor it belongs to the State. The Invasion of Iraq was wrong, the Invasion of your house is not.

Everybody is wrong for saying the left should be unhappy with this decision because of the big business angle. The left should be ecstatic about it because it isn't about big buisness, it is about big goverment. The government know gets to decide what the best use of any property is. Not market conditions, not the small business owner just starting out -- the government.

This is just what the left wants, has wanted, and continues to move toward. "Experts" who know better to run your life, decide where you live, work, and who needs what resources. Sure, Wal Mart makes out good, but it is the government who now gets to decide how the resources should be allocated. Very socialist if you ask me.

Can't believe I'm saying this but I am in total agreement with you, Jay Tea. Almost. Except for the fact that there is no liberal wing of the Supreme court, it's 7-2 Republican.

But, on the whole, I am absolutely disgusted at this decision. The Corporate Dream is alive and well, the American Dream is gone.

No liberal wing of the Supreme Court ?!?! Usually I reserve instances of spitting my liquid refreshments all over my monitor for the times that Jay T, Paul, Kevin, or one of the commenters says something truly spectaculary funny. However, now gordon has managed to make me do so by making a profoundly stupid statement.

Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Bryer, Ginsburg - the liberal wing of the SCOTUS. I know, I know, I know, so shut up already, some were appointed by Republicans. However, being appointed by a Republican does not preclude one from being a moonbat while on the bench.

My home is situated fairly closer to a street. I am growing increasingly concerned that there may be some better use of my property than a place for me and my daughter to live. I might as well just give my title over to the county now, and save the rest of the taxpayers the legal expenses of me fighting them later on. What a sad day.

Remember, too, that the dissenters are primarily those whom there was talk of impeaching. O'Connor, Scalia, Rehnquist?

I didn't hear a peep about impeaching Stevens. Good party man, that Stevens.

Oh, and -

"Land belongs to everyone, therefor it belongs to the State."

That's not Leftist, that's Stalinist. I'm not sure who the wise guy is, but he seems to be getting left and right confused. Ought to watch it before up and down blow out too.

My house is on Main Street JD, so I could be househunting next month!!
On the other point, it's not my fault you wingnuts have moved so far to the right that your appointees are looking like Che Guevara.

Would it surprise anyone familiar with my other posts to this forum that I think this was a supremely bad decision too? Granted, if the outcome had gone the other way, I would have expected that majority to write an even worse decision. A less bipolar Supreme Court might have handled this case with more delicacy, and we might have gotten the least possibly bad decision out of a range of bad possible decisions.

That said, it's nice to see how long you right-wing fruitbats could go, after getting your panties in a bunch about Senator Durbin's remarks, before you too would feel the need to dip into the well of making analogies to Stalin. (c.f. Wendigo above, writes: That's not Leftist, that's Stalinist.).

I never believed you guys were seriously offended by comparisons between the U.S. government and the regimes of genocidal dictators. So, tell me— why should I take your outrage about this latest Supreme Court decision any more seriously than all the other fake "outrage opportunities" you guys have played in recent months and years?

Gee, and for so long I have been under the impression that the Constitution was very clearly worded and formed a contract between the government and the governed. I certainly think I understand what the framers meant and captured in the Bill of Rights. Property seizure by the Crown was not an uncommon event and they had a good reason for putting in this clause. But, it seems that the founders never got that living document part down. The good news is that this ruling will almost certainly improve world opinion of the US, especially in Europe.

Actually, gordo, I think that you came close to pointing out where they lie on the political spectrum, just got it reversed. Reagan and Bush succumbed to attempting to appease the Democrats and offered up what were essentially considered to be "moderates" for the positions, who were in reality, liberal Rebublicans. Upon taking the bench, those justices simply forgot about the Republican part and went right on ahead with the liberal part. So, they might not be liberal enough for you, but that certainly does not make them Republicans or conservatives.

The fact that the basis used was tax revenue is scary.

Just wait...

"Say, that { Church | Synogogue | Mosque } on the corner over there doesn't generate any tax revenue, but my roller-derby would. Where's my bulldozer??"

Outrageous? Sure, but is it any more so than today's ruling?

why dont you allow us to comment here in wizbang about karl rove's great comments today...finally the truth is spoken...those liberals were behind 9/11...they caused the whole thing and laughed as those towers fell killing 3000 wall street bankers, conservatives all...they appluaded as they jumped from the towers and splattered on the streets of new york...they also dont support our troops and want them killed... all 150,000 of them in Iraq, who cares about wmd's and osama at least we got saddam...i say go karl...you are a true american...lets go get aruba next they are all black down there...maybe some lynching is in order

Maybe the justices looked again to examples of 'international standards' that would support or explain the majority opinion, and found...Zimbabwe! After all, Mugabe is destroying the homes of (tens of) thousands for the benefit of everyone, right?

Neil, I think that straw man just surrendered.

My mistake, that was France surrendering to Ronald McDonald.

s9

What about the phrase "all the land belongs to the State" is not Stalinist?

Developers Use Eminent Domain to Acquire White House

http://armedvictim.blogspot.com/

What about the phrase "all the land belongs to the State" is not Stalinist?

Whatever it is, it sure as heck isn't American. The Constitution clearly assumes the reality of private property ownership. So no, all land does not belong to the state.

If there is a silver lining to this, and I believe there is one, it is that this is an issue that can easily be framed where John Q. Public can easily understand the importance of appointing judges that actually read the Constitution. Most people just get the idea, at a gut level, that government should not just be able to take your home or land, and give it to somebody that they deem to be more worthy of its use.

Well, it's official

the NY Times loves the Kelo decision.

Earlier today some of the lefty blogs (kos, atrios, marshall, drum) were curiously silent on this issue ... look to them to pick up the cue from the NYTimes of how to play this

let's hope that Bush has learned from his father... how to make a great pick - Thomas. He better not follow his mistake of listening to Kennedy and picking Souter.

I think people are missing something very important here. Something that caught my eye and frankly shocked me that a Liberal Justice would say it.

In the decision, at least it has been reported, i've not read the whole thing yet. The majority opinion was local government can decide better than the Feds. So we finally have something given back to the states. So now lets organize and make eminent domain very restrictive. SCOTUS has already ruled they wont interfere!

Would it surprise anyone familiar with my other posts to this forum that I think this was a supremely bad decision too?

s9, will it surprise you if I say "no"?

;-)

When we start questioning why judges are in the left or right wing and who appointed them, Republican or Democrat and we still cannot make sense of the appointments. Let us remember that it use to be very UN-popular to have a “LITMUS TEST” when appointing judges. My how times have changed.

Jay,

It is quite a shame indeed.

Souter was a direct response to Borking. A compromise guy. He's been predictably lame.

If it's Rehnquist who retires, Bush MUST appoint someone at least as conservative as the Chief Justice, just to keep the ideological balance of power static.

Why, oh why, can't one of those justices leave? Especially Ginsburg. She is on the wrong side of so many issues, or at least moreso than the others...

Ugh...

And you know, even IF Bush nominated a moderate, Democrats would still gnash their teeth. But because Bush MUST appoint a conservative, they will have a point in the media. "Bush appoints right-winger to Supreme Court."

Ugh. I am not looking forward to this fight.

In time, there will be bloodshed resulting from this outrageous decision.

I have to admit, I think that when I see the news reports of the aforementioned violence, that I won't blame the homeowner.

OK, the majority went with prior art, aka [BAD] precedent. But I still can't quite seem to understanf the equation -

public use = private offices

Nor can I understand how a Federal law overrules local law whle at the same time local law overrules the Federal Constitution as determined by the same judges in a period of what, a week?

6 of the 9 have previously cited international opinion, cases in other countries and common law when writing opinions. That means that 6 of the 9 don't even bother to form opinions based on the document they are sworn to uphold.

IMO not doing your sworn duty is impeachable. If you are so brazen that not only do you ignore your oath but you write about it in your opinions you need to be gone.

The Kelo Decision makes it official, the Republic is dead, nor is there a Constitution. How can there be political rights if there are no property rights? Disagree with or oppose a government official and they can now find a better use for your property. Next it will be your freedom or your life.

Ask yourselves, which amendment of the Bill of Rights is still valid? None, save the Third regarding quartering troops in private residences. Nor is the Right of Habeas Corpus valid any longer, thanks to the misnamed and hastily passed Patriot and Homeland Security Acts.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Who was it who said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance? We have fallen asleep while on watch and we have reaped what we so richly deserve.

Seig Hiel, Comrade!