Supreme Court Not Interested in Protecting Property Rights from Eminent Domain Abuse

The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will not hear property owner Nick Sprayregen's appeal challenging New York's use of eminent domain on behalf of Columbia University. This means that June's notorious New York Court of Appeals ruling will stand and the state's land grab will proceed.

As I noted on Friday, it takes four votes for the full Court to agree to hear a case. So one or more of the four conservative justices joined the liberal bloc in rejecting this appeal. Since none of the votes were made public—and because it's a little early for the clerks and other insiders to reveal what happened backstage—we don't yet know what transpired. But we do know the results: The Court's disastrous precedent in Kelo v. City of New London (2005) stands unchallenged while property owners in New York remain at the mercy of the state's disgraceful eminent domain abuse.

Comments

[fresno dan]

Supreme Court Not Interested in Protecting Property Rights from Eminent Domain Abuse

OK, delete "property rights" and insert any other constitutional right and than delete "eminent Domain Abuse" and insert any other abuse of the constitution.

FIFY

[ClubMedSux]

I was going to simply suggest deleting the "from Eminent Domain Abuse" part but your comment is definitely more thorough.

[John Pistole]

The Supreme Court is ONLY interested in protecting individual rights to the extent that they serve the interests of the USG and its ruling elite.

It's worth remembering that the Supreme Court is part of the USG, and that its Justices are employees of the USG.

[R C Dean]

I think this is what we're reaching for:

Supreme Court Not Interested in Protecting Property Rights from Eminent Domain Abuse

[Tulpa]

Nutpunch to the Nth.

I did not see this coming.

[Tulpa]

Assuming Thomas and Alito voted for cert, which is pretty much a given, that means two out of Roberts, Kennedy, and Scalia did not.

[Mr. Mistoffelees]

Hey, I just noticed something!

The Fifth Amendment doesn't say anything about taking private property for private use. It just talks about public use.

that means that the government doesn't even have to compensate these people as long as they give the property to a private owner. They should consider themselves lucky they're getting any compensation! oh snap libertarians, you don't even read the passage you think agrees with your position, did you?

[Pro Libertate]

I've heard that argument used in all seriousness. Of course, the government can't legally take property except for a public use, but you couldn't tell by the way the government acts and its courts back up such actions.

[0x90]

In some cases, 'public use' means kicking low-income people out of their not-awesome houses, then knocking those houses over, then building multi-level senior housing (a 100% county-funded project) even though zoning laws explicitly forbid such structures. Naturally, a new zoning is established (under false pretenses, of course) to make way for the action, even when a majority of the population sees through it and shows up at city hall, in person, to protest.

That's how eminent domain for 'public use' works in Small Town USA.

[joshua corning]

you don't even read the passage you think agrees with your position, did you?

I did and I can tell you did not, or you simply read it wrong.

One thing i have thought about though, adverse possession.

So lets say i build a house and it is over my neighbors property line and i live there for 10 years and then i discover i built it on my neighbors land. I go to a judge and he says it is a case of adverse possession so i get the land my house is on.

Did the government just take my neighbors land and give it to me?

[Pro Libertate]

Government - 10 trillion
People - 0

[ClubMedSux]

Actually, if you're taking stuff from the people, shouldn't their--I mean, our--score actually be negative?

[Pro Libertate]

Those aren't dollars. They're points.

[ClubMedSux]

I know, but I still think that being in the negative would better symbolize our position.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Detour:

Federal judge here in Richmond rules Obamacare unconstitutional.

Other District Court judges have ruled it constitutional, including one in the Western District of Va. This judge is Eastern District. So from here it goes to the 4th Circuit, which tends to be the anti-9th Circuit. The 4th is relatively conservative.

From there to the Supremes, which is where everyone knows it will end up. In fact, Va Atty. Gen. Ken Cuccinelli has been talking about ways to skip the Circuit court and go direct to the SCOTUS.

[Id]

In other court related new, a Va federal judge has just struck down the individual mandate from ppaca.

[Id]

Dammit missed by a minute.

[joshua corning]

Since none of the votes were made public

I am eagerly awaiting Tony's and John's excuse on why it is good this vote is kept secret from the American Public.

[Montani Semper Liberi]

It's hard enough to be an unelected official with an essentially guaranteed job for life without having every decision you make scrutinized by the public. Come on, joshua. Think about the poor Justices here.

[Zeng Zeets]

LOL, of course not, welcome to the new order LOL

internet-privacy.edu.tc

[J sub D]

Fifth Amendment, R.I.P.

[P Brooks]

The Justices are wary of being on President Bloomberg's shit list.

[Old Mexican]

Supreme Court Not Interested in Protecting Property Rights from Eminent Domain Abuse

Which is not surprising, since one of the main reasons for the existence of government is to trample over property rights, otherwise government would not tax.

[Almanian]

Supreme Court Not Interested in Protecting Property Rights from Eminent Domain Abuse

Well........shit.

[NoVAHockey]

OT: Federal judge finds obamacare individual mandate exceeds Commerce clause and Necessary and Proper Clause powers.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3174287/Opinion.pdf

[BWM]

How about "5 years later, and the Supreme Court still lacks authority to rule on local government's use of eminent domain"? I really, really hate this kind of abuse, but I also really, really hate the idea of throwing all federalism, and representative democracy, out the window solely to get a (pyrrhic) victory. That kind of over-reaching by the Supreme Court has largely CAUSED our loss of liberty; the fact that they occasionally make a good decision isn't enough reason to give them so much decision-making power.

[Mr Evilwrench]

Baby. Bathwater. We need the SCOTUS to render decisions. Of course, we need them to be good decisions. Therefore we need someone who will nominate good justices. We can't keep having this back-and-forth not-too-bad vs infinitely-worse nomination thingy. Then we need a Senate who can stand for the quality nominees, yet is not afraid to call out the scrubs. OK, I give up, I'll just be laying over here, whenever you're ready to pick my corpse clean.