The Supreme Court Outlaws Private Property

Oh good God. Now the SCOTUS says it’s ok to take private property and give it to private developers.
Nothing is safe from the reach of government now. And you can thank the Gang of Five:

…Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Thank God Congress is hard at work protecting the flag instead of, oh, say something silly like our constitutional rights that are actually mentioned in the goddamned Constitution!

16 Responses to “The Supreme Court Outlaws Private Property”

  1. Fuckers. I’m stunned.

  2. Dave J says:

    I’ve just decided that my long-germinating post on the Court’s outrageous decisions this term is going to be called “Dave J vs. Justice Kennedy.” It’s extremely unfortunate that he’s not one of the rumored impending vacancies.

  3. I guess this means it’s not a mortgage anymore, but in fact a rental agreement with the city. Here’s to urban renewal!

  4. Lisa says:

    I’m expecting any day for Justice Scalia just to go all postal on ALL their asses.
    Fuckers for sure.

  5. Crusader says:

    Uh, Dave, what was that you said to me on it comes in pints about us not just being renters of the dirt our houses rest on? I am just glad it is the more liberal members of the court looking out for us little guys…[/sarcasm]

  6. Nightfly says:

    I am staggered. All of a sudden Justice Stevens is Mr. Federalism? “It’s not for the courts to decide…” If that’s how you want it, Sir, fine – the enforcement of the Constitution falls to the executive. Let’s call out the National Guard to protect those homeowners when the bulldozers come. I’ll see your Caterpillar and raise you a Bradley, jackass.

  7. Bill McCabe says:

    You’ll forgive me if I don’t have a problem with homeowners putting a few holes in those who come to evict them in order to build a mini-mall.
    Though a “New London Construction Equipment Party”, in which people dressed as natives dump bulldozers and backhoes into the river is probably a better, less violent idea.

  8. Mr. Bingley says:

    Bill, that’s genius.

  9. WunderKraut says:

    A sad day…It looks like I better pull out my pocket edition of the Constitution and cross off another right….Is there still something about a well armed citizenry? That may help.

  10. Mr. Bingley says:

    The amount of bribes that will now flow into the pockets of corrupt local officals staggers the imagination.

  11. WatchfulBabbler says:

    It’s like the old anarchist slogan, “Property is theft,” but turned 180 degrees.

  12. SCOTUS? Nay, good fellows. SCROTUM

  13. Mr. Bingley says:

    Asbury Park, Neptune, and a whole bunch of other towns on the Jersey Shore are now going to go nuts in screwing people to steal their land.

  14. Nightfly says:

    As I recall, some of them already have. Asbury and Neptune are mentioned in that article as well.
    Speaking of Neptune – they have long since absorbed the community of Ocean Grove, with consequences to the smaller town. Their police department disbanded in 1977; in ’80 they were forced by court ruling to allow vehicular traffic on Sundays (somehow, shutting the gates was a breach of the imaginary wall of separation). I’ve spoken with some of the B & B owners, and the general feeling is that the taxation-to-services ratio is rather poor; they are sort of the stepchild neighborhood. (Other residents may have a different opinion; I certainly didn’t go about conducting a poll last time I was around.)
    It’s pathetic. Towns need to reclaim areas full of condemned structures, or for the construction of schools and hospitals. But now, developers who can’t get people to sell are using the courts to do their work for them. And how come neither of the other branches have the stones to put a stop to this robed coup? You think Andy Jackson would take this mildly? Hell, he’d lead the troops into the fields himself.

  15. Mr. Bingley says:

    Oh, but Nightfly! I’m sure those paragons of civic virtue in the NJ Statehouse will enact legislation to countermand this. Surely none of them will be tempted by developer’s dollars…

  16. Dave J says:

    OK, this was a TERRIBLE decision, but it’s not the last word. Since most eminent domain is by local governments, a simple state statute can restrain it. In states where that’s not likely, and/or to stop the state itself, property-owners need to push for amendments to their state constitution that will protect them: many states have far tighter restrictions than the federal Takings Clause. As for fighting Uncle Sam, you’re SOL, but then it’s also (relatively) pretty rare for the feds to be engaged in handing property from one private party to another.

Image | WordPress Themes