Careful libs, your mask is slipping
A few days ago in the Kelo v. New London case, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decided that the eminent domain definition of public use extends to not only things like roads, water systems, flood walls, etc.. (you know, actual public services) but to anything the local government determines helps them in any way, including higher tax revenue. So for the first time, the SCOTUS has determined that this law can be used to allow the government to take one private entities property and give it to another private entity.
The actual case involves a small subdivision (with houses up to 100 years old and in good condition) being taken from their owners (including an 87 year old women who was born in her house) and rented to Pfizer (yes the multi-billion dollar drug company) for as little as $1 a year. All this because the town council has determined that the financial benefit of having a Pfizer plant is worth more than those peoples homes, and of course under any math it is. But where does this stop?
This ruling allows anyone's home or business to be seized if the local government determines that some other developer can make better use of it. There is already a well used system to facilitate that type of action, it called capitalism. If you want my house, make me and offer. If we agree on a price, good for both of us, if we can't, then go buy someone elses land.
The best part of this decision (if there is anything good about it at all) is that it was the liberal judges that decided to interpret public use this way, with all the conservative judges dissenting, showing once and for all the difference between judicial activism (or making crap up as I like to call it) and the strict constitutionalists.
The right side of the blogosphere was almost unanimous in it's condemnation, as they should (see Captain's Quarters, Protein Wisdom and LGF for starters), whereas the left is either trying to ride both sides of the decision or fully support it (See Kos, Eschaton). Although in their defense there are some rational voices in the comment section but them seem to be from conservative or ex- democrats.
This just goes to prove what the right has been saying about the left all these years; they are essentially a socialist/communist party looking to create a nanny state. Under this type of ruling you no longer own property, you are merely dwelling on public lands until such time as they decide they have a better use for it.
The actual case involves a small subdivision (with houses up to 100 years old and in good condition) being taken from their owners (including an 87 year old women who was born in her house) and rented to Pfizer (yes the multi-billion dollar drug company) for as little as $1 a year. All this because the town council has determined that the financial benefit of having a Pfizer plant is worth more than those peoples homes, and of course under any math it is. But where does this stop?
This ruling allows anyone's home or business to be seized if the local government determines that some other developer can make better use of it. There is already a well used system to facilitate that type of action, it called capitalism. If you want my house, make me and offer. If we agree on a price, good for both of us, if we can't, then go buy someone elses land.
The best part of this decision (if there is anything good about it at all) is that it was the liberal judges that decided to interpret public use this way, with all the conservative judges dissenting, showing once and for all the difference between judicial activism (or making crap up as I like to call it) and the strict constitutionalists.
The right side of the blogosphere was almost unanimous in it's condemnation, as they should (see Captain's Quarters, Protein Wisdom and LGF for starters), whereas the left is either trying to ride both sides of the decision or fully support it (See Kos, Eschaton). Although in their defense there are some rational voices in the comment section but them seem to be from conservative or ex- democrats.
This just goes to prove what the right has been saying about the left all these years; they are essentially a socialist/communist party looking to create a nanny state. Under this type of ruling you no longer own property, you are merely dwelling on public lands until such time as they decide they have a better use for it.
posted by Bic at 5:16 p.m.
2 Comments:
For the middle of the blogosphere read this:
http://lonetreeontheprairie.blogspot.com/2005/06/yall-made-me-do-it.html
Because both the left and right are missing a couple very important details.
Interesting and informative piece.
I have seen people debating the Hawaii case with regards to this but not the other two you mentioned..
Just to make it easier, I've just reentered the link from above into a hyperlink:
lonetreeontheparirie
Post a Comment
<< Home