From the 'what in the hell where they thinking' department comes today's U.S. Supreme Court decision [.pdf] that says that local governments can seize an individuals' businesses and homes to promote economic development. Yes, it was a spit decision, but...
The case came from New London, Conn. residents who challenged the government's use of eminent domain to take and pay for private property and use it for private economic development. Homeowners sued the city, which wanted their land for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for a 5-4 majority, said local officials know better than federal judges whether a private development would benefit the community. States, though, can pass laws restricting cities' rights to condemn private property, the court ruled.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor strongly disagreed, writing that the decision allows the powerful and well-heeled to benefit at the expense of others.
Please don't retire, Justice O'Connor! (See, Ronald Regan did give us sometime worthwhile!) And how is this for just shocking -- I'm in agreement with the right side on this issue. This from Slate.com's Today's Papers:
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing the dissent, wasn't exactly mollified: "The specter of condemnation [now] hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." Joining O'Connor in the dissent were Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas.
Still to come before the Court adjourns for the year is the much anticipated decision about whether Internet file-sharing services are liable for their users' illegal downloads of movies and music. Dum-da-dum dum daaaaa!
Comments