The recent Supreme Court decision on emminent domain was flat-out wrong. Beyond flying in the face of protecting the individual from excesses of the powerful and/or the state, it provides for environments where bribary/chicanary (sic) could result in the confiscation at unreasonable prices property that the owner should HAVE THE RIGHT to retain.

Breyer, Ginsberg, et. al. perhaps in trying to establish a state's right to determine public "use" extended this already dangerous concept to public "good." I can understand the concept, but it creates well-fouded fear of complicity between big business, and big-government.

The bottom line is though, people must have the right to have confidence in their persons and propoerty, unless the government can establish overwhelming public benefit, and ensure public control. At that point, it is hoped the impacted citizen can at least accept if not agree, that the public benefit was served, and also that NO ONE, is getting his/her assets in preference to himself.

There have been many fine opinions written by the majority members of this decision, this one was not among them. It's flatly repulsive.

PB

Darn that George Bush and his Right Wing Supreme Court!

Darn that George Bush and his Right Wing Supreme Court!

This had nothing to do with Bush...he didn't appoint any of them, though you certainly can argue that nominee Roberts has a strong history of siding with Business...

Having said that, yes, this represents a HUGE departure from norm for those on the majority. I am glad that Rehnquist and Scalia voted against it, sometimes they make me happy. Yet, when we talk about preserving liberty, it was Thomas who said in the Rumsfeld vs. Hamdi case that the government, especially the President, is granted broad powers. Breyer, Ginsberg, Scalia, and Rehnquist disagreed, saying he had gone WAY too far. The concern is that it is Thomas to whom Bush looks for examples of what he desires.

So this is hardly as simplistic as pointing out that non-conservative members of the court voted for it. My reaction is "this time" and there are plenty of other situations that the conservatives have abandoned (or at least some have) the principles of individual liberty. Moreover, expecting someone Bush will nominate to protect you, is relying upon the wind, as is evidenced by Thomas (but not Scalia).

Regardless, this was a crappy decision, a point nearly all liberals, convervatives and centrists, agree on. So what's your point again?? I think that the right has been surprised and disappointed from time to time by the conservative members of the court too (witness the Schaivo case). Bush made it clear he would have over-reached on that given his way (and really he did), but the court stopped him. Saying "but that was Kennedy" is a laugh, believe me, Scalia and Rehnquist would have done the same, because it was such a gross infringement on state sovriegnty and useless intrusion into family law.

PB

To back slowly away from a complete immersion in the Heisenblog Principle;

Kelo institutionalizes a lot of gross impositions from both the "left" and the "right"; the scare quotes are intentional; remember, business is not automatically conservative, and tends to support and draw support from *the establishment* rather than an ideology.

Eminent Domain was used to gut entire neighborhoods for freeways and, worse, "Urban Renewal", a massive, New-Deal-ish government effort to remake cities in the '50s and '60s, a social engineering experiment that we're still paying for. It's easy to say it's a "leftist" imposition - it was utopian social engineering, after all - and its fallout has certainly played into the left's hands (begetting immense blight, creating a place to warehouse the poor for easy access by the left's social service bureaucracy, etc). Fact is, eminent domain is a tool for use by the haves (those who have power, money, access and, once in a while, moral imperative) to use to get what they want from the have nots with the blessing of the law.

But my point has nothing to do with the politics of the left or the right, or even the nature of the "establishment" (which is not apolitical so much as omnipolitical).

It's about what people need to do to change things. I was amused by Ms. Saunders' reaction; "It sounded like a good idea, until I met the guys whose business and livelihood are being trampled" - it shows how desperately citizens need to *pay attention*, to dig beneath the blandishments of the rainmakers and their PR flacks when learning of these sorts of developments.

People need to become more actively involved in their government. It matters.

Mr Berg:

There is an old building in the heart of beautiful Mendota (just across the bridge) that has a huge spray painted condemnation of Kelo on the outside. I bike by it about twice a week. I've knocked on the door a few times to see if it was a local example of eminent domain...but nobody was there. This may be a good topic for your show if it is a local example. I'm not really sure if it is, but a picture of it is worth the trip.

Mr Berg:

There is an old building in the heart of beautiful Mendota (just across the bridge) that has a huge spray painted condemnation of Kelo on the outside. I bike by it about twice a week. I've knocked on the door a few times to see if it was a local example of eminent domain...but nobody was there. This may be a good topic for your show if it is a local example. I'm not really sure if it is, but a picture of it is worth the trip.

I have absolutely no problem with eminent domain in regards to roads and other government needs. Yeah, so somebody's business gets pushed to the side, roads are needed for a number of reasons including commerce.
This position does not advance to the use of eminent domain for businesses. The thought makes me want to gack, it's similar to the idea of a gov't run casino. Gov't's role is to regulate business and not take part in it, period. It doesn't matter whether the homes/businesses have been around since 1898, 1949, 2004 or if it's CRP land; we are not communists, gov't should not take part in business.
You were amused by Ms. Saunders reaction, I was irritated, it never sounds good for gov't to seize land for private corporations, whether they are a boon or a bust it sounds like $*`T! I don't like the whole "think about the people" line in justifying or condemning it, "think about the government" that's a more accurate portrayal.
What is up with the whole "side with business" argument as condemning the idea? Even if you air brush civil liberties issues out of the picture, gov't should not be this big. As Jefferson said, "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."