Thursday, June 23, 2005

There is no blue or red - only green...

High court OKs personal property seizures

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Let's see. This is happening in Connecticut, which I thought was a Democratic party state. Several citizens are being forced off of their personal property "for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue."

That's right, people. If a major corporation decides they want to build on your land, they just need to convince your city government that it will generate revenue. Most of my Liberal friends are fond of telling me that it is the Republicans who care for corporate America more than the citizen. If so, the following doesn't make much sense:

Sandra Day O'Connor - Republican nominated by Ronald Reagan
William H. Rehnquist - Republican nominated by Reagan
Antonin Scalia - Republican nominated by Reagan
Clarence Thomas - Republican nominated by George H. Bush

Stephen G. Breyer - Democrat nominated by Clinton
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Democrat nominated by Clinton
David H. Souter - Republican nominated by George H. Bush
Anthony Kennedy - Republican nominated by Ronald Reagan
John Paul Stevens - Republican nominated by Gerald Ford

Maybe it's 45% of Republicans who are in Corporate America's pockets, but how do you explain all the Democrats voting "yes" and the fact it's happening in a primarily Democratic region?

We need to send Zapp! books to the Supreme Court Justices and government officials in Connecticut. Or some of Deming's books. Crap like this is a short term gain that leads to a long term loss.


Ashish Hanwadikar said...

Eminent Domain Abuse

Mexigogue said...

Good point about the rich/poor thing Cosmic. Conservatives don't hate the poor. They hate collectivism and the idea that the needs of the many override the property rights of the few. That is why the conservatives came out on the side of the homeowners.

Peggy said...

Now the state legislatures will have to get off their rears and pass appropriate legislation to protect individual property rights. It will be interesting to see which states do it and which don't.
This may actually backfire. The officials in New London are still making the "but we only doing this because we really need the money" whine and there are some indications that state legislators may step in and try to stop the city council from continuing their attempts to take the land for Pfizer.

Alex said...

This actually sounds about right -- conservatives protecting property rights and liberals looking out for the "greater good."

What both miss is that the "greater good" would be to limit seizure to blighted or unused property, not to simply allow or deny it.