What's highly ironic about the eminent domain decision

[CTLawGuy]

is that the court said something to the effect of "local governments know best..."

but this is CT, our last governor is in jail for corruption - for taking kickbacks from state contractors. The last mayor of Bridgeport is in jail for corruption.

Joe Lieberman's 2000 senate opponent, former Waterbury Mayor Phil Giordano, is now in jail for child molestation.

Imagine if that guy had the power to decide what was "best for the people of CT"?

"I'll give you a free trip to Aruba if you let me demolish part of Hartford and build a casino, Mr. Rowland. It'll be for "economic development." (wink) (wink)"


What a horrible decision.

[Democrats_win]

1. Good observations! Wonder where the property rights GOPers went?

[davepc]

4. Uhm...read the dissenting opinions

[smitty]

2. A bad decision

for everyone. Basically state and local governments can now take your property and turn it over to a big corporation or real estate developer. The business gets the profits while the government gets an enhanced revenue stream. The small home owner or small businessman gets screwed.

Remember, all four "liberal" judges supported this decision.

[stickdog]

3. Unless it's about medicine for the terminally ill, of course.

Then the Federales get to move in!

[davepc]

5. well...

If the commerce clause means that the feds get to regulate intrastate commerce, then why would it be so hard to twist the takings clause to mean whatever the hell the government wants it to mean?

[CTLawGuy]

7. the court actually LIMITED the fed gov's reach under interstate commerce

they said that the federal "gun free schools act" was unconstitutional because it was not directly related enough to interstate commerce to give the federal gov't the power to do it.

The US Gov't said that the gun-free schools act was related to interstate commerce because if kids were allowed to bring guns to school, they might shoot each other, then it would deprive those kids of the opportunity to work in interstate commerce, thus affecting interstate commerce.

The court didnt' buy it.

Too bad there are no such limits for eminent domain.

[davepc]

8. Yeah, Lopez in 1995. But they opened the door again in Raich in 2005

10 years change some things.

[AngryAmish]

10. But where are we now with medical marijuana decision?

That was said to be in the stream of commerce.

[Fire Walk With Me]

6. What if they're weakening the state govs so they can "step in"

and assume total authority?

[aion]

9. Tax abatements, cancerous blights

What struck me as bizarre about this decision is that it doesn't require that the state PROVE that it will benefit from the forced sale. That opens the door for all sorts of corruption, in my opinion.

What is there NOW to stop a corrupt politician from demolishing your home in order to receive some campaign donations? How would you feel afterwards if you learned that the corporation being built in your old home's location was the recipient of 10 years of tax abatements in order to sweeten the deal some? And how will you feel if that corporation decides to bail the area after those ten years in order to find a new sucker and 10 more free-loading years somewhere else?