Property ownership is a pillar of our free society, is it not? Not according to the liberals on the Supreme Court. We’re not talking about taking private land to build a road or put in a river levee or a power plant. We’re talking about seizing land so Wal-Mart can add a store, or a land developer can put in a multi-use development, office park, or hotel complex.
Why is it that the liberals want every kind of freedom, except the freedom to buy and own land?
The battle to put conservatives on the Court gains in importance as each day passes. Especially today--a bad day for freedom in America.
--James Jewell
I agree with you about this "--a bad for freedom in America." I was shocked by the decison, did they think they could really pull this one past us? And think we would just shrug it off? Ughhh
YanıtlaSilWhile I agree with Stevens that a bright-line rule should be avoided to allow deference to local legislatures to decide for themselves, I must agree to a greater extent with Justice O'Connor that a bright line already exists: quoting Justice Chase that a legislature cannot be allowed to act contrary to the "first great principles of the social compact". She correctly foresees that this decision will blur the distinction between public and private holdings and will make vulnerable any property privately held.
YanıtlaSilWhat I find particularly frightening is Stevens language that economic development "as deemed by the legislature" should be a determining factor and that he cites that the NLDC had an established plan to invigorate the local economy. If all I have to do is create an established plan to rob my neighbors then when, where, and how will this end? The door has been opened for much mischief and those who would protect the rights of individual, minority, private owners have been restrained.
By the way, great blog!