Well, if you believe that in the right to own property, then the SC made an ERR. The good of the public is a highway, not a hotel that is owned by a sole person. These people are acting in protest. And, due the the SC's ruling, it is for the good of the pubic to build hotels on private property. If the Justice loses his house due to his own ruling, then he's getting his dues. If you want to goof on my spelling, then know I was out with mad women tonight, and I'm only back here for a sec, because I believe in our government. To those who want to dismantle it, FU. 51 is not enough. You need 60+.

Cheers,
Yo

I agree with the idea of the "Lost Liberty Hotel" but hope it doesn't just stop with that. This absolute power of the business community, by getting cozy with local government, to take peoples' homes (eminent domain) must stop. It seems contrary to the spirit of the 5th and 3rd amendments to the Constitution. If it takes another amendment to stop it, maybe that's the way to go.

The Supreme Court made a major mistake with this ruling. In the past, eminent domain could only be used for limited purposes that directly served public interests, like building a highway, dam, etc. With this new ruling, government can seize property for private projects. The SC bought into the argument that some private projects can fit under the definition of "the greater public good", but I disagree. I think this ruling puts us on the edge of the proverbial slippery slope.

Matt:

Since this ruling clearly tramples on conservative principles of limited government interference and property rights, are you aware of any initiatives in Congress or the WH to pass legislation that addresses this issue?

Congress pass legislation on this???? The developers would have Congress members on so many "junkets" they couldn't get a quorum together to vote for the next 10 years.

Slip,
Do you believe the SCOTUS erred in the Kelo ruling? Liberals on SCOTUS make bad law? What are you saying? Spit it out! You think they did, don't you? That must be a tough pill to swallow for a progressive like you.

If you want to goof on my spelling, then know I was out with mad women tonight...I believe in our government. To those who want to dismantle it, FU. 51 is not enough. You need 60+.

1. Whatd' ya expect from codepinker types.

2. You sound like Teddy Kennedy after a few martini's...err burp. Beware alcohol, pills, and codepink don't mix. You will wake up with a nasty hangover and a two bagger in bed.

I hope this group of protesters are successful and get Souters house...and get it for the assessed value to boot. Screw em'

If you want to goof on my spelling, then know I was out with mad women tonight,...

Why would I want to "goof" on your spelling--or grammar, for that matter? You goof a-plenty. And Slippy, mom, grandma, and sisters don't qualify as "going out with mad women." However, any woman would have to be stark-raving mad to go out with you.

...are you aware of any initiatives in Congress or the WH to pass legislation that addresses this issue?

cookiecorp, when Kelo was ruled on by SCOTUS, one of the justices--Kennedy, I think==made a suggestion that the states should enact their own legislation concerning private property. I think several are in the process of doing so.

This, and other legislation, should be individual state's issues, and not left for the feds, or SCOTUS, to decide. That is why it's vitally important to have judges, not super-legislators, on the bench. OTOH, the left would prefer to have nine Souters, Stevens, or Ginsbergs on the bench, because they view the courts as legislators. Just ask UpChuckie Schumer...

Souter is a GOOD start... Give him a taste of HIS rulings...

"one of the justices--- Kennedy, I think ==made a suggestion that the states should enact their own legislation..." Is this the same Kennedy who routinely rejects state legislation in favor of foreign opinions?

"I think all the justices who voted with Souter on Kelo should have the same things happen to them"

Per Kelo, this sort of thing is not allowed. The intent is punitive, not tax-raising.

Just wondering why Souter is being singled out....there were 5 other justices which concurred I believe?

"I think all the justices who voted with Souter on Kelo should have the same things happen to them..."

I seem to remember an interview that indicated that it was the ultimate intent of doing the same thing to all the justices who voted with Souter on this.

If you want to goof on my spelling, then know I was out with mad women tonight, and I'm only back here for a sec, because I believe in our government. To those who want to dismantle it, FU. 51 is not enough. You need 60+.

I haven't the foggiest idea what some of our friends are saying so I'll pay them no mind.

As for this, I'm all for this hotel and I hope it goes through. Then they should (and probably will) move on to the other judges. It's just plain wrong how this one decision has sparked land taking across the country. I also hope each state starts passing laws to try and counter this.

Will they? No, unless we get on their cases!

"Is this the same Kennedy who routinely rejects state legislation in favor of foreign opinions?"

What do you mean by routinely? And 'in favor' ?

Kennedy was appointed by Reagan, Souter by Bush Sr. and Stevens by Ford, while Breyer and Ginsberg were appointed by Clinton. You can't blame this on "liberals" in SCOTUS, since most members of SCOTUS were appointed by Republicans. It is embarassing that any supreme court justice agreed to this ridiculous ruling, whether he was appointed by a Repub or a Dem. I do understand that the ruling was meant to put the onus on the states to make these determinations, but still, SCOTUS' job is to be the ultimate word especially when the states are in violation of our constitutional rights... as in the case of allowing a private corporation to evict people from their homes (to, in part, build an office building for Pfizer Pharmaceuticals no less). We should expect Republican appointed justices to be supportive of corporate right but this is ridiculous. Still, much respect to (Republican-appointed) O'Connor, Renquist, Scalia and Thomas for voting against this Orwellian proposition.

What about my idea of an amendment to the US Constitution? In 50 years, all the current Justices will be dead and there is no guarantee what the President, Congress, and Supreme Court would do, to say nothing about differences from state to state; but if it was in the US Constitution nobody could abuse any of our descendants using an 'eminent domain' clause. I made a draft version that would I think protect individual citizens while keeping the true intent of the idea of 'eminent domain':

"No individual or private corporation (see 1)
can take procession of an individual citizen's primary home of residence (see 2)
unless a State Of Emergency has been declared by the current President of the United States of America in that specific location (see 3),
and then only for just compensation."

point #1: If the US military, et cetera, needs that land, they can use 'eminent domain' for the protection of the nation as a whole, but not a private business unless #3.

point #2: If the citizen has multiple houses, 'eminent domain' can be used, but not on the house that they live in. If the citizen has only one house, 'eminent domain' can not be used, unless #3.

point #3: If a natural disaster, et cetera, the Federal, State, or local government can give 'eminent domain' rights to a private business; for instance, after an earthquake a government can let a health care provider use 'eminent domain' so they can help victims of the earthquake survive, but if they destroy your house doing that you should get just compensation from either the company or the government.

What about my idea of an amendment to the US Constitution? In 50 years, all the current Justices will be dead and there is no guarantee what the President, Congress, and Supreme Court would do, to say nothing about differences from state to state; but if it was in the US Constitution nobody could abuse any of our descendants using an 'eminent domain' clause. I made a draft version that would I think protect individual citizens while keeping the true intent of the idea of 'eminent domain':

"No individual or private corporation (see 1)
can take procession of an individual citizen's primary home of residence (see 2)
unless a State Of Emergency has been declared by the current President of the United States of America in that specific location (see 3),
and then only for just compensation."

point #1: If the US military, et cetera, needs that land, they can use 'eminent domain' for the protection of the nation as a whole, but not a private business unless #3.

point #2: If the citizen has multiple houses, 'eminent domain' can be used, but not on the house that they live in. If the citizen has only one house, 'eminent domain' can not be used, unless #3.

point #3: If a natural disaster, et cetera, the Federal, State, or local government can give 'eminent domain' rights to a private business; for instance, after an earthquake a government can let a health care provider use 'eminent domain' so they can help victims of the earthquake survive, but if they destroy your house doing that you should get just compensation from either the company or the government.

I'm a liberal, and I would vote for such a measure and I think many other voters, both liberal and conservative, would support it.

Bye Partisan,

You can't be serious. Apparently everyone in the world but you knows that Kennedy, Souter and Stevens regularly take the most liberal positions on judicial rulings. THIS is why we need Alito, to rectify the mistakes of appointing these closet liberals.

Bye Partisan,

You can't be serious. Apparently everyone in the world but you knows that Kennedy, Souter and Stevens regularly take the most liberal positions on judicial rulings. THIS is why we need Alito, to rectify the mistaken appointments these closet liberals.

shortz,

That is a bit of splitting hairs on your part...at bottom, Kelo says that our property is ours as long as our local government feels they are collecting sufficient taxes on it. This means we don't own our property, we hold a fief from the government which is revocable at will (this puts us on a lower property level than serfs).

It is a ruling which we want to have removed as swiftly as possible...cetainly before lawyers figure out how we can sub-infuedate our property.

My property is mine, and unless the government wants to build a strictly public structure on my property, it remains invoiable.

Bye,

It is a bizarre ruling and clearly unconstitutional...and, yes, 6 of the 8 (and soon 7 of 9) Justices are GOP appointees...but most of them were made before the left made the judiciary a knee-to-groin partisan political battlefield. Had you guys on the left never started using the courts as a legislature, we wouldn't have this problem to begin with.

"unless a State Of Emergency has been declared by the current President of the United States of America in that specific location (see 3),"

Why federalize the decision?

"That is a bit of splitting hairs on your part"

I'm telling you what the case says. Sorry if you don't like being accurate.

"...at bottom, Kelo says that our property is ours as long as our local government feels they are collecting sufficient taxes on it."

At bottom, you're paraphrasing. Have you read it? It doesn't allow you to vindictively target one person: "Nor would the City be allowed to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit. "

This actual purpose, what gets everyone here excited, is a private benefit: targetting the justice you hate. The opinion says you can't do that, despite whatever wingnut paraphrases you have read. try reading the opinion itself.

Kelo says that our property is ours as long as our local government feels they are collecting sufficient taxes on it. This means we don't own our property, we hold a fief from the government which is revocable at will (this puts us on a lower property level than serfs).

Ahhh, the delicious irony. The same people who are here defending this abomination we call Kelo, are the very same people who, despite the actual definition, refer to conservatives and Republicans as fascists. Apparently, they are the products of the liberal indoctrination system, or as they like to call it, the public education system. They are so completely unaware of the true nature of fascism that they can't even identify it when the SCOTUS drops an example in their laps! They merrily guzzle more Kool-Aid and accept the decision while continuing to cry about BusHitler...

I love irony. I love unintentional irony best of all.

Oh but Phnx I am serious. Ah yes, the left took GOP appointees and MADE them vote on the liberal side of things. The Left controls the media, the school system, the colleges. It's amazing how much the left has screwed up in this country according to you folks, even though Republicans have had control of the Legislative branch and/or Executive brand for several decades now (not to mention most of corporate America). Maybe if conservatives made an effort to fill teaching positions, take a more active role in the (corporate owned) media or in the university system, things would be different. It sounds like conservatives are just as paranoid as they claim liberals to be. The leftwing conspiracy... oooo. Talk about personal accountability... blaming others for one's problems.

I try to take a more balanced view as do most people in this country. The only people trying to blame it all on Bush, Republicans or blame it all on the liberals or lefties or "the other guy" are politicians and "Kool Aid" drinkers on both sides. Mind you, B4B is not the only blog that suffers from this one-sided mentality--most blogs, liberal or conservative have this problem, in my opinion and we should all do our best to call them on it. I guess being balanced just doesn't sell page-views.