Ralph Nader Slams Supreme Court Decision On "Eminent Domain"

[Itsthetruth]

June 23, 2005
News Release

Statement of Ralph Nader on Supreme Court Eminent Domain

WASHINGTON, June 23 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a statement of Ralph Nader on the Supreme Court eminent domain:

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v City of New London mocks common sense, tarnishes constitutional law and is an affront to fundamental fairness.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution permits government to seize private property for a "public use," such as a highway, railroad, or military facility, provided it gives the owner "just compensation." Many state constitutions have similar provisions. But in modern times it has become common for the government, usually at the state or local level, to seize property and transfer it to another private party rather than maintaining it for public use.

Hundreds of abuses of eminent domain have occurred during the last few decades, with municipalities playing reverse Robin Hood‚ taking from ordinary citizens and giving to powerful individual developers or corporations. In many cases, the alleged public benefit is a transparent cover for what amounts to legalized theft.

With today's decision, the Court has abdicated its role as guardian of the Constitution and individual rights. This decision authorizes courts across the country to allow self- defining misuses of "public use" and "public benefit" requirements. State courts, however, remain free to impose more reasonable restraints on government taking of individual property.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=49368

[Verve]

1. I really can't believe they ruled this way.

I guess this is an example of what's to come if more conservative judges get on the bench. Hopefully this will get all our democratic politicians fired up. They need to fight aggressively to keep this court balanced.

[Itsthetruth]

3. A Rare Anti-Big Business Vote By "Conservatives"

This was one of the very rare times that the "conservative" judges on the Supreme Court ruled against big business interests. In fact, it might have been the only time!

Don't expect it to happen with any regularity. We need Supreme Court members who always rule on the side of working people. The Supreme Court "conservatives" can be depended upon to vote against our interests 99% of the time.

[losdiablosgato]

4. Sad to tell you, but the liberals on the court vote for this ruling.

[Eric J in MN]

48. I don't consider most of them "liberals."

Of the 5 who voted for this horrible ruling, I consider Stevens and Ginsburg liberals, but not Souter or Kennedy or Breyer.

[Shrek]

7. Most of the conservatives dissented

Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, and O'Connor did not vote with the majority.

I'm no lawyer, but the identity of the dissenters tells me all I need to know to identify the correct side of this issue.

[K-W]

29. Conservatives hate eminant domain.

The idea that a populist government can take your property is disgusting to those people who feel it is thier birth right to keep having way more property than everyone else.

This is a situation where the policy is horrible, but legal and the supreme court doesnt get to vote on whether policy is good or not, only on whether it is legal. The state does have the power to sieze land for public use and except for a marginalized minority on the left the country by and large thinks that private development is a public use.

It is that ugly lie / misunderstanding that is the problem here, not the court upholding eminent domain.

[dean_dem]

30. It may not be up to the SC to determine State policy, but...

It is up to the SC to intervene when States are overreaching their bounds, and it affects the rights of individuals. At least in my opinion, that's what happened in this case.

Seems like Mr. Nader still has a bit of common sense left. Good for him.

edited for clarity

[K-W]

38. Sorry, the supreme court cannot do what you say.

It can only interpret the law, and the law doesnt agree with you or Nader.

The state can sieze property as long as it provides due process and compensates the owners. If you dont like what it does with this power, you have to change the officials.

[dean_dem]

40. I don't mean they can "actively" intervene

But when someone brings a suit to the SC, the Court can rule that the state overstepped its bounds as set by the Constitution, constraining the rights of the state to do it in the future. That's all I mean.

[K-W]

47. The state didnt step over its bounds in the constitution.

The constitution allows it to do this.

The real problem here is that the government is serving the wealthy, and that problem has nothing to do with eminant domain. The supreme court can only rule on the matters of law before it, and that is all it did.

[GreenArrow]

2. next stop

Today, it's siezing private property to benefit private interests in the name of the public good. Tommorrow, it's seizing public property to benefit private interests in the name of the public good.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. "Progressives" who are in the back pocket of corporations are

no progressives.

[4_TN_TITANS]

15. Hi Yung!

:hi: Welcome to DU and America.... This country is far from perfect, but it's still a nice place.

[salin]

22. who defines these folks as progressive?

most were appointed by republicans (Ford, Reagan and GHWBush).

Curious - from where do you hail (where were you before coming to the US?)

[mpendragon]

5. freedom is on the march

So they can take anything they want from anyone they want and make it a gift to their friends. They can also arrest anyone they want without charges, a trial, or real representation.

I think my signature sums this up.

[Walt Starr]

8. Ralph Nader has just regained my respect

and he possibly may have won my vote...

[Devlzown]

9. Something tells me

Ralph won't be Bush's Supreme Court nominee.:P

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. Hehe.. I don't think he was ever on the list. That would been interesting

thoug. I had wanted him as Sec'y of commerce of hear of rhte SEC or FEC. But scotus would be very interesting as well.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. Thanks Ralph. :^) Let's see if we can all get together and do something

about this.

[Rainscents]

12. Can this be overturn by Supreme Court, if someone took it up again?

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. Maybe. but only if one of the folks who was for it turns against it

[Rainscents]

16. OK, thanks! Maybe huge protest?

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. I am keeping an eye on my fave petition and action sites.. as soon as I

see some petitions ready I will post them. :) (We could also start one of our own)

[Rainscents]

24. Yes, thats good idea!!!

We can start the petition and pass through internet, especially to moveon.org.

[Walt Starr]

27. Or one of them leaves the court and is replaced by a justice who

agrees with the dissent on this one.

That's what I'm going to hope for.

[cprise]

18. "State courts, however, remain free to impose more reasonable restraints"

Oh, so the world is NOT coming to an end.


"what amounts to legalized theft."

I heard those homeowners were getting paid. Fancy that, a new definition of "theft". And the recipients of this land are paying for it... plus creating jobs in construction, retail and other areas. That admittedly is a loose definition of "public benefit".

But I shudder at the prospect of having SCOTUS delineate precisely what these terms mean for everybody.

It is for Connecticut to sort out this problem.

[Itsthetruth]

19. How Bout A Wal-Mart Superstore On Your Property?

We'll "buy" up your neighborhood block and turn it into a parking lot!

Now that's economic progress.

[MadHound]

20. In addition, let us have WalMart buy that poster's property

At those usual Low Low ED "fair" market prices, which usually run an average of ten to twenty percent below the free market prices.

Just a little bit of thievery ya know, the government will pay a small pittance:puke:

[cprise]

26. Not without my town's permission.

And in the incredibly unlikely even it did happen, it wouldn't BE my property anymore and I'd have the money from the proceeds.

It would be crummy, but not earth-shattering. Get a grip people.

OTOH, the possibility of using ED *against* a Walmart remains... thank goodness. Admittedly it's not likely to happen until progressives make a convincing case for locally-owned businesses with clear non-monetary benefits. Until then, SCOTUS has decided that CT has sufficient checks on this power and that New London's numbers-only justification is plausible.

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. It would be a reasonable ruling with more safeguards in it. But without

safeguards it's a good idea gone bad.

[cprise]

31. You want SCOTUS to call for safeguards?

The chances of that involving Congress is extremely high. BAD IDEA.

And you better believe that Scalia, et al. wanted that to happen.

CT already has due process and checks on ED power... But they used it with a terrible lack of vision in this case.

The reform in this case needs to happen at the state and local levels.

If the dumb*ss "progressive" movement (Clinton-worshippers) in this country had a clue, they'd work for a comprehensive policy for sustainable development that made damn sure much more than the bottom-line was taken into account... The kind of positive direction that obviates the need to artificially restrict. But instead we get efforts like "Green Capitalism" of the 90s that assert eco-responsibility is good for your bottom-line and this still exerts its strong sentiments and habits on policy wonks. So UNLIKE THE REST OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD, the debate around all development here remains preoccupied with monetary profits.

[GreenPartyVoter]

33. Not necessarily the SCOTUS, but there is no guarantee that states

and municipalities will put those safeguards into place either. Esp if their governing bodies are already in the pockets of corporations and developers.

That's where the rub is. I fear that corruption will win the day.

[cprise]

36. The standards of "public benefit" are set democratically.

That's because they are a matter of policy.

SCOTUS will (ostensibly) work toward keeping CT and other states democratically accountable.

There's your 'gaurantee'. The rest, as always, is up to us.

[cprise]

37. This issue reminds me of Grey Davis

...as I've said elsewhere.

It's like being a Californian, and deciding that Davis is too pro-corporate to protect the people. The political animal is aroused, and it proceeds to knaw its own limbs off.

[yella_dawg]

21. I always thought Eminent Domain sucked.

It gets used too often and for the wrong reasons.

But since Nader is so aggressively opposed, I need to rethink my position. Maybe it's not such a bad idea after all.

[Itsthetruth]

23. Sure You Will

Nader also opposes the occupation of Iraq. Will you be rethinking your position on Iraq? :>)

[K-W]

28. So Nader misses the point too.

There is a travesty here, but everyone is getting the location of the travesty completely and totally wrong.

The problems are the inherent problems in our government and economy, and the undemocratic establishments and structures that dominate both spheres.

If Nader wants to argue that our government is not legitimate and therefore it has no right to sieze a damn thing, I would agree, but if legitimate, the constitution certainly does give the government the right to do this.

I dont like it any better than anyone else, but as liberals we really should be supporting eminant domain, and not turn on it and liberal justices because our society is so warped that private development is seen as a public good by the vast majority of people.

[dean_dem]

32. This isn't about opposing emminent domain altogether...

it's about opposing the ABUSE of emminent domain, which is what happened here. As I said in a previous thread, the amount of taxes you pay to a locality should not determine how much protection you get from that local government.

[cprise]

34. Opposing abuse

...as laudable as it sounds, it a poor substitue for having a political culture that places value on the non-monetary aspects of life.

If your culture is going in a negative diirection, then put restrictions on the Constitution. Well, I think neocons would broadly agree.

Artificial restrictions (esp. placed at the Federal level) always come back to bite the little guy... hard.


* Does anyone have data which shows that ED usage is rampant?

[dean_dem]

42. Re: your last question

The Institute for Justice has a pretty comprehensive report of cases of abuse of ED.

www.ij.org
http://www.castlecoalition.org/report/index.shtml

Calling it rampant would be like the FoxNews morons calling a few isolated incidents an all-out liberal "war on Christianity." But I do think it occurs more often than people think.

[K-W]

35. You cant have your cake and eat it too.

You cant oppose eminant domain when you disagree with the state about the efficacy of its policy if you support eminant domain when you agree with it. Either the state can take property if it compensates people or it cant.

The supreme court isnt supposed to address the question of whether or not the government is making good public policy, simply whether that policy is legal.

I think Nader and others are making great arguments that this is not in the public interest, but as long as the government can reasonably argue that it is, it has the right to take land as long as it compensates the owner, that is the entire point of eminant domain.

[dean_dem]

41. I'm not picking and choosing which ED cases are acceptable

What's at issue here is when a locality abuses what is otherwise a perfectly acceptable way to encourage growth and development.

If it were for a strictly public use, I'm fine with it. If they are simply redistributing land from one property owner to a more well-financed and connected property owner, I would say that qualifies as abuse.

By your standards, one could argue that it is then okay for Wal-Mart to take a property owners land and build a big stinking Supercenter in its place. I think if that had been what had happened in this case, a lot of DU-er's would be singing a very different tune.

[K-W]

46. That is exactly what you are doing.

Wal mart cant take anything from anyone, you are oversimplifying the facts to spin this.

This is not a case of a corporation taking anything from anyone, this is the case of the government taking property, something it is constitutionally allowed to do. Nothing in the constitution says the government cant do this and that is the only issue the supreme court can address.

The problem is not that the government can take land, the problem is that it is doing so for corporations, and that is a problem of our electoral system and representation, nothing the supreme court was asked to rule upon in this case.

[DerekG]

39. The civil tone of this thread is unprecedented

30+ responses thus far, and not one "F--k Nader/Ralph is the apostle of Moloch" to be found.

Oh my stars and garters, we've got a bloody miracle on our hands.

[dean_dem]

44. There's still some adults left on this board.

It must be juice-and-naptime for the others.

[noiretextatique]

45. give it time

:hi: i see one has arrived.

[hiphopnation]

43. ralph nader couldn't slam a twinkie in a toilet bowl.

go to sleep, ralph.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

49. Nader's position is an outright lie

The states HAVE the power to avoid these abuses and many states already have laws on their books that create a much higher threshold for eminent domain.

If the area were to further deteriorate, lending itself to crimes of poverty, that TOO would disenfranchise people from their property or worse yet, make them a prisoner in their own home.

Furthermore, he KNOWS damn well these people will be compensated for their property.

If the citizens of Connecticut are unhappy with this decision, they can pass more stringent laws at the state level to avoid these incidences in the future.

I might add, there would be a HELL of a lot more jobs for Americans to go to under a Democratic president who didn't make it easier to ship jobs off to other nations...but...oh..nevermind!

[Gloria]

50. I heard one of the people suing...Man, they have gotten screwed.

He was on Alex Jones, even he was surprised at what these people have been through...
The man interviewed said his family had lost a house 30 years ago to and now again. 5 years ago was "condemned"...offered $60,000 for a house assessed at over $200,000 (and paying taxes on that), an 1895 10 room waterfront Victorian...and it's going to wind up that they're going to have to pay RENT for the period it was condemned and they'll wind up OWING $100,000 to the city after they get the $60,000!!

They voted the original gov. officials out, then the new guys turned around and screwed them again after running on the platform that they wouldn't do it!

Really, this is pretty outrageous....