The Conservative Supreme Court just handed us a 2008 political win

[Samantha]

Democrats need to pick up the ball and run with it.

With its decision to allow private parties to usurp the homes and land of private American citizens for the purposes of simply increasing local tax base revenues and creating a few jobs, the Republican dominated Supreme Court violated the essence of the our Constitutional rights, the right to pursue liberty and happiness, while at the same time radically altering the original purpose of the eminent domain law. The outrage among the American people, on a bi-partisan basis, is palpable.

If one believes this Country is in the process of making the ultra-rich richer, and in that process is eradicating the middle class and hurting the lower income people, that belief can be capitalized (pardon the pun) into a winning 2008 issue by the Democratic party. In that process, the Democrats can accomplish the following:

We can seize this hot potato political issue and persuade the outraged homeowner we will not allow this transgression to happen. Many Republicans I know have investments in real estate in prime locations which now are in jeopardy. As an example, a friend who invested in some prime ocean-front real estate seven years ago has seen that investment quadruple in size. The location of this property would be obviously subject to a ripe takeover by a predator contractor who could put in any number of businesses, office spaces and condo combinations in that exact location with the avid support of the local government. To do so would exactly parallel the situation under review by the Supreme Court when it rendered its decision allowing this predator tactic to become a legal maneuver. The tax base of the local community would be greatly enhanced, the substitution of a contractor's project for the now-existing condominium community on the ocean front would eradicate the long-term investments of the home-owners/investors, and the healthy investments these affluent people made over past years would be simply handed over to the extremely affluent. Some of these people are Republicans. They voted for Bush* for one reason, and one reason only: taxcuts.

Looking at the situation pragmatically, these points appear salient: those taxcuts in place are no substitute for the economic loss people will suffer, affluent as they may be, when their prime real estate investments are simply taken over by those even more affluent.

Put this aside for the moment and look simply at the middle class American person who simply made an investment in a home over the past few years and is now totally de-stabilized by the threat that home can be taken from them by a predator contractor. I fall in that category. Seven years ago in the Washington, D.C. area I bought a home four blocks from a popular metro. I did so because I could not deal with the congestion in the DC area and wanted simply to walk to a metro as opposed to taking my life in my hands on a daily basis to drive on the Beltway in rush-hour traffic. My neighbors are a community of people both Democrats and Republicans who settled in this community for the same reason. This land is a prime target for a predator contractor (by the way, like that term?). It would be so lucrative to take this property, demolish the fine older homes built 50 years ago, and turn it into a complex of office buildings, shopping centers and condos at the expense of those of us who reside here now.

I feel threatened today as I did not the day before this decision was handed down by a Republican Supreme Court. My home is in jeopardy whether a takeover happens or not. This will hang over my head the rest of my life. This is my biggest, most important asset, and my neighbors, as I previously said, both Democrats and Republicans, are in some same endangered position.

I look to my party to take this political football and run with it. The most egregious criticism made of the Dems over the past few years by both Republicans and the media is that we have no issues.

Well, we have one now and the Republicans just simply handed it to us. Looking at the situation through bi-partisan lens, here is a golden opportunity for our party leaders to stand up in opposition to what the Republican Supreme Court just did to the American people and lead the charge away from the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter -- are you listening?

Can we fight for the right of the American people simply to buy a home, invest in real estate, and work to make a few dollars for their long-term retirement benefit without living with the paranoia the Republican Supreme Court decision has now generated -- that our very homes and livelihood can legally be a target for the stalking predatory practices by the very wealthy sharks among us?

Furthermore, as the politicos now charge in the media that the "liberals" have voted for this -- WHERE IS OUR RESPONSE to that outrageous assertion? There are seven Republicans sitting on this Court as we speak. Do YOU truly think we should allow these politicos to make that "liberal" accusation without turning it around into the ballpark in which this political football has been played? This was not accomplished by the liberals: it's a hostile takeover of the American citizens' property by the greedy Republican predators who put in place Republican judges totally willing to hand down a stacked opinion such as this.

Again, where is our response that the liberals have done this?

Looking at this both politically and pragmatically, I say here is an issue for our platform that can attract many, many Americans from all walks of life. Ask our party leaders to look at the outrage and offer a beaconing hand to all Americans who feel threatened. Join us in 2006 and 2008, and we will fight for you. We will take this threat handed down by a Republican Supreme Court and we will do all in our power to keep you from being irrevocably damaged by it.

Are you with me? Do you see this as a golden political issue Democrats can passionately campaign against, and in that process attract voters to our tent in a way we have failed to do so during the Bush* years?

If you believe there is ANY validity to these points, please post your comments here. If we find there is enough support to envelop this issue into our platform, fighting for the common man, the common homeowner, the common investor, as opposed to the ultra-rich, we can work to support the re-emergence and ultimate victory of the Dems in 2008.

[RPM]

1. check which justices authored this opinion...

not who you would like to think.

[Birthmark]

3. Three of those five were appointed by Reagan/Bush I

[femme.democratique]

4. Reminder: with the exception of one, those justices were appointed

by Republicans. Keep that little tidbit in perspective - they're not liberal just because they don't want to outlaw abortion.

[Samantha]

6. My point exactly -- we are in total agreement

However, I am under the impression the Dems appointed two judges, Ginsberg and Breyer.

Regardless, there are 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats. The Republicans sharks authorized this predatory takeover if you consider the vote was simply 5 to 4.

[RPM]

8. abortion or not....

Four of those five are considered the liberal wing.

Even if not by your definition, they are by the mouthpiece that will shortly begin attacking them for the decision in an attempt to smear liberals.

Here's how the GOP freaks define the Court.
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg form the liberal wing of the court. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy are considered moderates.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/june/0603_court_conservatives.shtml

So whether or not the majority is truly the liberal wing is irrelevant - those wingnut scumbags will be attacking this decision as "bad liberal law"; repeat it enough, it becomes the truth. That is why this decision is a problem for us.

[Samantha]

21. I am aware of this

but my question is, why do we let them get away with it? None of these are liberals by my standards, simply relatively speaking, they are liberal compared to some of the others such as Renquist and Scalia. Do you personally know any Republicans you consider to be "liberal?"

Do you think this decision is a viable Democratic issue for 2008? I think it is, and I think we must start right away saying why this decision is more of the Republican way of doing things, i.e., robbing the poor and middle class to make the rich richer.

When my Republican brother called to complain of the "liberals" on the court, my response was, this was more of a fascist approach. If you don't like the law, change the law to make illegal concepts perfectly legal. The liberal approach is to take a little more from the well to do and give to the less fortunate. This opinion in no way reflects that concept, quite the opposite.

[batsauce]

30. Be sure of facts..

What happened here is really bad.

But you should be aware that both of Clinton's picks voted for this thing.

The Conservative wing (Thomas, Scalia,Rehnquist) voted against it.
The Liberal wing voted FOR it.

[femme.democratique]

43. Clinton isn't a liberal, hever was, nor are the judges he appointed

Agreeing with a womans right to choose does not mean they're liberal. They're ESTABLISHMENT, regardless of which political side they come from.

[batsauce]

57. Right. There is something wrong with these 5 judges.

I used the term liberal to discribe them because Daily Kos did.

They kind of take the good out of liberal, these ones do.

[Samantha]

44. During commentary on this week's McLaughlin Group

the point was made the 5 who voted for this in effect declined to define for local governments what, as far as public use was concerned, constituted a legitimate eminent domain takeover (I will use that word, the 5 did not). In that light, relegating to local governments the authority to define for themselves when seizure of privately-owned property to benefit another private party should be condoned was the judicial intent of the five. That in itself is not a liberal concept. It's a states' rights issue. It is a strict constructionist concept.

Spinning by the GOP that the "liberal" judges on the court enacted this legislation is simply a distortion of the truth. I don't see why we do not stand up and literally refute this interpretation of what just happened and why it happened; to idly stand by and listen to "the liberals did it, the liberals did it," is allowing the truth, once again to be siphoned into a version which can be used as a political football for purposes of (1) appointing a more conservative judge to fill any future Supreme Court vacancies; (2) as a campaign issue in 2006 and 2008 to ignite a flow of undecided voters over to the conservative side.

I am sorry; I just don't understand why there is not an immediate adverse reaction to this spin; it's going to devastate us in one way or another.

[batsauce]

55. Theft is theft. It doesn't matter who says its OK.

I think the big we need to focus on is that the Supreme Court has validated a vile practice. It doesn't matter what political stripes the perpetrators wear.

It is wrong for someone to take my property against my will. Ordinarily we would call this theft, but in New London it is referred to as eminent domain.

I find your comment interesting:
" In that light, relegating to local governments the authority to define for themselves when seizure of privately-owned property to benefit another private party should be condoned was the judicial intent of the five. That in itself is not a liberal concept. It's a states' rights issue. It is a strict constructionist concept."

Lets say that the judges decided that local governments had the right to deny minorities the right to vote. I guess under your perception, that would be "strict constructionist". Or lets say the judges said that local governments had the right to imprison anyone who did not agree with their viewpoints. I guess that would be strict constructionist also.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. In all fairness, John Paul Stevens is liberal

Breyer and Gindsburg are pretty much center-left. O'Conner and Kennedy are center-right, Rhenquist is right, Scalia is far right, and Thomas is too stupid to think for himself.

[Samantha]

15. I was extremely disappointed to see Stevens go with the majority

A Republican who was propelled to my personal list of political heroes with his excellent dissent in Bush v. Gore. You win some, some lose some. At this time, I disagree with his opinion, but I can voice my opposition to his position, simply recognizing he simply honestly sees it differently. I still respect the man. I always will.

[Goldeneye]

2. this might change your mind....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3940035

[Samantha]

5. The numbers are the numbers

There are 7 Republican Supreme Court judges and 2 Dems. The decision was made 5 to 4. There is no mathematical way the Dems did this.

And if one thinks he can convince me the liberals have done this, he or she has got some fast talking to do. That word "liberal" is a subjective term. In my book, none of these Republican judges are "liberal" as I define it. It's a relative thing. I doubt very seriously the animal the press refers to in essence as the Republican "liberal" exists as that phrase is defined today.

It's a much more cogent approach to strip that word liberal from this debate and simply say the Republicans have done this. This is the simple literal truth that cannot be refuted.

[corbett]

7. Scalia Showed His Pro-Business Colors Again

The decision is an outrage and the Democrats definitely can get some mileage out of it. While the vote never should have been so close (true Republicans oppose the decision, too), Scalia showed his pro-business colors once again by granting even more power to corporations who are treated as citizens more and more under the law.

[Samantha]

10. Yes it simply is outrageous

And the Democratic party needs to feel that outrage and act on it. How many times must we get victimized by these vulchers before we say enough is enough? Yet some are simply taking an apathetic look at this and saying, "business as usual."

These are our homes we are talking about. Where we live. Are we simply going to roll over? Once Again? Enough is enough. In fact, it's been far, far too much. And now we allow the Republicans to say the liberals have done this. It is outrageous.

First, they took away my vote. Then they took away my president. Then they took my civil liberties. Then they took my pride at being American. Now they want my daughter to fight in their illegal, immoral way. They want my social security AND they want my home.

For God's sake, isn't enough enough? Where is the outrage?

[T Town Jake]

24. Ummm, except, well, Scalia *dissented*...

...which means he voted against "granting even more power to corporations who are treated as citizens more and more under the law."

[shance]

32. He may have played 'bad cop' but this is what he wanted.

and what he stands for: taking the power from the middle class and giving power to the Republicans. Oh excuse me, they arent republicans in a true sense, they are corporate oligarchs.

[shance]

33. Samantha, you always write wonderful, thought provoking posts

This subject woke me up this morning thinking of the further abuse by many in power against all Americans. Seems to me this again reverts back to the Bush Administration no matter how they have attempted to distance themselves from the issue and use the good cop/bad cop routine.

This is another convenient way for them to steal from Americans: by taking their biggest investment in the good ole term of eminent domain, which essentially means Im going to steal your land in the name of " government necessity". This Administration could potentially force other public officials to do their dirty work, this time assaulting and leaving every American in fear of losing their homes.

Hopefully, like you inferred, this will be the wake up call for all Americans to see what the corporate interests are attempting to do. This is an attempt to consolidate all power by those who already have too much power in their dishonorable hands.

[Samantha]

45. Thank you so much for your kind words - you made my day

I hesitated to return to this thread tonight because I couldn't face the disappointment of having received so little passionate response, as I did last night. Your thread really picked me up and got my rebellious juices flowing again on the subject.

I hope you happened to have caught the commentary on the McLaughlin Group. It was very interesting to see how this issue was held under different lights by the various participants and an entirely different shine was reflected depending on the political persuasion of the speaker up at bat.

I was very surprised to hear McLaughlin himself refer to private parties simply searching to take over others' homes in an effort to make a huge profit contingent upon the homeowners' loss as a "land grab." He referred to the vultures (I hope we can start using this term) simply as "thieves." He's angy. I am angry. I am encouraged to sense others here are angry too.

Thank you for your response.

[shance]

52. You are more than welcome. I think it's you who deserves the thanks

for providing the thought provoking and insightful post.

:)

[batsauce]

31. Scalia voted against the Corporate Land Grab

I don't know what's going on, but thats the fact.

[pstans]

9. I am going to get some flak on this, but...

I do agree this is a touchy subject and see why a lot of people are disapointed, but I don't think the decision is that bad. I will point out that my degree is in Geography and I wanted to go into Urban Planning (though I am going to be a teacher now), so my view is a little different probably.

I saw a program on Public TV called NOW that discussed this issue last night and I found myself siding with the cities most of the time. Yes, it is a bad thing that someone who owns a home and has lived there for years has to move, but they do get just compensation. Emminent domain is powerful and important tool cities have to insure that the city grows in a well productive manner. To invoke Emminent Domain, the area must be blighted. There isn't really a set definition of blighted. Are weeds in the yard mean the area is blighted? Do abandoned homes mean the area is blighted? That is a fine line.

I believe if the area is truly blighted emminent domain can serve a public purpose by removing that area and building something new. The show on PTV showed a case in Ohio where houses were torn down and later a court ruled the area was not blighted, but it was too late. This is an abuse of power and should not be allowed to take place.

The key is quality town planning. Quality town planning can better the lives of all citizens in that city. Redevelopment of blighted areas sure beats urban sprawl. It would be safe to say that town planning in many parts of the nation are done by people who are not qualified to do so (town commisioners, planning and zoning commissions, etc.)

I got an email from the American Planning Association yesterday and if I have some time, I will post some of what they said.

[davepc]

12. Sure

As long as government isn't staffed with people who take kick-backs and bribes and outright graft from developers.

Problem is, they do, and the problem is wide spread and doesn't know boundaries based on political party affiliation.

Since the system is so open to be abused there need to be strong LIMITS on it.

[Samantha]

13. I am not going to give you any flack, I just want you to look at this fact

One cannot go with the idealistic approach that all local politicians are honest people. Some of them have been approached by greedy contractors to let them have their way. Politicians can and have been bought in the past; there's no reason to think this will not continue to happen on an escalated basis everywhere.

Some of these community homes have been condemned simply because they did not have central air conditioning or two-car garages. These are homes in older communities extremely well-kept where the home owners have lived all their lives. To condemn their well-kept loved property for either of these two reasons is outrageous. One homeowner who had worked all his life to pay off his home said, I thought I bought and paid for this home, now it seems I was just leasing from the state all this time. This is simply not right.

[elehhhhna]

11. USSC just burst the waterfront property "bubble", fersure.

[Samantha]

14. I can see a gambling casino sitting there now

She has yet to open her eyes to the threat this decision presents to her financial security. And that tax cut Bush* gave her is no substitute.

My eyes are wide open. I see the threat. I ask people here to come out of their apathy and ask themselves, isn't this an issue our party leaders should charge against in support of its base and with the goal of drawing in all home owners/property investors who simply feel outrageously in jeopardy over this decision.

The rich, Republican greedy sharks are out swimming in our home waters. Will we allow them to simply swallow us whole, or will we spear them as they approach? That is the question.

[JPK]

16. Eminent domain & Zoning Laws

Here where I live, which is a very red area of the state of florida, this decision appears to me be another legal tool for the state and business to basicly steal property they want to "develope". Already we have land zoning supposedly to control, regulate and distribute growth. But to be honest, if a parcel of land here is zoned residential and if a company is big and rich enough to want the land, they will get it rezoned. At least now when a corporation wants to develope a piece of property, they have to pay market value to the owners, with this interpritation, the state can aquire the property through ID for probably much less than the corporation could, then resell to them. All it would take is some back room deals between the government and the company to get the land. We have an instance here in town where Walmart wanted to build a small, compared to their other stores anyway, supermarket very near a busy intersection. That intersection backs up for a mile at rush hour. The local residents were concerned about adding to the already congested nature of the area and also, the store was to be open 24hrs a day and could contribute to late night loitering, etc.. They were able to fend off the construction through the local govenment, barely. However....Wally World went to Guv Jebby and now the state is involved and no doubt the store will be built contrary to what the people want for their neighborhood once there has been a suitable "quiet" time. The reality is, the laws don't mean shit. If they want something bad enough, they will change the law or find a loophole interpritation to get what they want and screw anyone that gets in there way.

[Samantha]

46. Your point toward the end is exactly what I was trying to say above

in an earlier response:

"The reality is, the laws don't mean shit. If they want something bad enough, they will change the law or find a loophole interpretation to get what they want ...."

That's not a "liberal" approach ... it's a fascist maneuver. Let's call it what it is as opposed to rolling over and accepting the GOP blaming us.

[JPK]

17. "Land.......

.....Land.... I must have that land. There's only one thing standing between me and that land.......The rightful owners."

Heady Lamar......That's Headly! Carl Rove's Great Granddaddy

[MiniMe]

18. The right is saying that it is the "liberal" SC justices in the majority.

I just don't know where they get that from. I guess if they don't agree with it, they have to spin it.

[oxbow]

19. nominated

maybe we should send this to the DNC

[franmarz]

20. When are us democrats going to get our act together?

We are just treading water. I want to see a strong candidate emerge to carry the banner for us all.

[togiak]

22. It doesn't matter

who appointed who...the right wing feels that the only good judges are ones like Scalia and Thomas. They are using this to argue that we need more judges like Scalia and Thomas.

Any attempt by the Dems to capitalize on this will backfire because we are siding with Scalia and Thomas on this issue. If we were to use this issue as evidence that we need to remake the SC we are saying that we need to remake it in the form of Scalia and Thomas.

This is a no-win for us.

[phish420]

23. Agreed

That is really how I feel - this was a tool to get the 'liberal activist judges' to look bad with a nice kick back to developers and corporations on the side. People just don't pay enough attention to smell the obvious skunk when normally pro-business justices voted against it. They had the votes they needed, so they could get the "See? We need more like Scalia and Thomas" line out there. Masterful. Brilliant. Evil.

[Mythsaje]

26. How can that HURT us?

If we attack the ruling and side with the so-called conservatives, it makes a lot of people who hate liberals sit up and take notice. WE are about the little guy, remember? And, when stacked up against a might corporation, the private landowner is a little guy too.

There's a hundred little repug business owners in any average city eying their neighbors warily right now, wondering if any one of them might be looking to develop right over the top of them.

If the Democrats stand up and say--no, that's not what we're about. We repudiate this ruling and here's why.

"Private property is an important concept in this country. Ownership of one's own land is an economic bulwark against ill tides of fortune. It's a safe haven for all men and women, a place where they, as the saying goes, are the king (or queen) of their castle. To take this away from them simply to improve an area's revenue stream to the benefit of corporations and potentially corrupt public officials is a direct insult to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution they gave us.

[togiak]

27. We can't make it about the Supreme Court

They have already made their ruling and there is nothing we can do about it....it's final. If we complain about the ruling then we are just playing into the hands of those that want to remake the SC in the image of Scalia and Thomas.

But, this is an issue that can be fought at the state level since the ruling basically left it up to the states to define public use/public good.

[Samantha]

49. Thank you for your thoughtful response

I agree with everything you say.

There comes a time when we must simply do the right thing. Calling this for what it is, a simple "land grab" perpetrated by "thieves" is the right way to label it.

Even conservative commentators said this decision is "ripe for abuse." We can't just sit still and allow the perpetrators of any future abuse take our private property for purposes of enhancing their own wallets.

[losdiablosgato]

59. Look for towns to use this to remove minorities and the poor

This law is rip for a bunch of yuppies to run out the poor and lower classes from a town.

[salin]

40. and how would the new bush appointee Patricia Owens vote

her record is always pro corporation - and this is about communities taking land for corporations. And she was at the forefront of bush's push for "conservative judges".

[Samantha]

47. I don't think so -- we are simply disagreeing with the Republicans

I just can't accept this being painted as "the liberals did this." I see no Republican liberals on the Supreme Court. As I said above, that's a relative term. Liberal compared to whom? One can only see Republicans as "liberals" if they are completely oblivious to people like Teddy Kennedy or uninformed about people like Al Gore. I do not accept your premise, and I hope I can persuade you to rethink your condoning the GOP response to this issue. They are spinning for political purposes and you are saying they are correct in their analysis.

[booley]

25. it doesn't matter which justices voted for this

Only that democrats stand up and oppose it... and make it THIER issue.

[rucky]

28. I'm sorry you spent so much time writing this. n/t

[batsauce]

29. Something wrong was done, but it is as much our problem as the pugs

Here is the breakdown.
The justices are categorized according to:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Supreme_Court_of_th...
(that's Daily Kos)

FOR
John Paul Stevens Liberal Ford
David H. Souter Liberal Bush I
Anthony Kennedy Center-right Reagan
Stephen G. Breyer Liberal Clinton
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Liberal Clinton

Against
Rehnquist Conservative Nixon
Scalia Conservative Reagan
Thomas Conservative Bush I
O'Connor Center-Right Reagan

There are 4 reliably liberal justices, and 3 reliably conservative justices. All the liberal justices (including both of Clinton's picks) voted for this travesty.

(note: if you are not familiar with the case, a large corp got the city of New London to evict a large number of working class homeowners so they could build their new facility. Hopefully, your home isn't build on land some Corp desires.)

[batsauce]

35. Link changed.

Looks like Dkos is doing some editing.

Here is a working link to document I was looking at:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:wbYQkWUOXp8J:www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Supreme_Court+Supreme+court+site:dkosopedia.com&hl=en&start=1

[shance]

34. Samantha you always write wonderful, thought provoking posts (repost*)

This subject woke me up this morning thinking of the further abuse by many in power against all Americans. Seems to me this again reverts back to the Bush Administration no matter how they have attempted to distance themselves from the issue and use the good cop/bad cop routine.

This is another convenient way for them to steal from Americans: by taking their biggest investment in the good ole term of eminent domain, which essentially means Im going to steal your land in the name of " government necessity". The abuse could be nationwide and like every other thing this Administration has produced, it will create abuse. There are many ways it could be abused: the Administration could potentially force other public officials to do their so called dirty work, this time assaulting and leaving every American in fear of losing their homes. They could make massive amounts of money by stealing valuable real estate especially in the most expensive areas of the country.

Hopefully, like you inferred, this will be the wake up call for all Americans to see what the corporate interests are attempting to do. This is an attempt to consolidate all power by those who already have too much power in their dishonorable hands.

[batsauce]

38. This Land Grab is vile, but I don't how we fix it...

For one thing, it is pretty rare for the Supreme Court to overturn previous Supreme Court rulings.

For another thing, all of the Democratic picks for the court (all two of them) voted for this thing. Do you think Gore/Kerry/whoever will be able to pick more reasonable men? Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a heavy hitter for the ACLU, and Breyer has solid liberal credentials also. It's not like Clinton picked right-wingers.

For another thing, if we were able to pick up one or two judges after 2008, these five "liberal" justices would still be there, and in a meeting of 9, 5 is still a majority. The ones I had heard rumours of retiring are actually ones who voted against the Land grab.

[Samantha]

50. Well "all" equals only "two"

Let's be clear about that.

There's only two or three ways this can be "fixed" but I doubt it is altered before homes are lost.

It can be fixed at the state legislative level. It can be fixed through another Supreme Court case, in which it is hoped 1 judge could rethink the "ripe for abuse" element; it could be fixed by Congress (checks and balance). That latter fix I believe would have to be very carefully engineered.

Personally, my fix is this: if any contractor comes after my home with a "plan" I will look up his address and construct my own "plan" for a new business that will increase the local tax revenue. And to any city council member who condones public abuse of "land grabs" I ask, where do you live?

[batsauce]

56. Clinton's role in this...

was to select the 20% of the justices who went along with this.
Percentage wise, that makes him more culpable than any single Republican.

He was the first Democrat in a decade able to choose a Supreme and he blew it twice.

[many a good man]

36. Dems need to propose a Constitutional amendment

The takings clause should ONLY refer to eminent domain over property for PUBLIC works, not for handing over land to private developers.

This is the only way to counter the fact that so-called liberal justices made this decision. It would be the easiest amendment to get passed ever.

[batsauce]

41. Also, action can be taken at the State (and local) level

States can limit the use of eminent domain.
This can be influenced by the inititive process.

Also, If it is a local decision (New London was a local issue I think)
local politicians can be confronted.

[Moxygirl]

42. Problem is

Dems won't propose a constitutional amendment because a majority of them are A-OK with this ruling. We true Liberals falsely assume the Dem leadership share our values.

Sadly they do not by and large, they simple are the lesser of two evils.

What we really need is a smart charismatic leader willing to voice the real values of true liberals to the American people in a way that defies SPIN by RW's.

We need a complete overhaul of the DEM party or a completely new grassroots party in order to effectively define Liberal values.

Until this happens we will never throw off the yoke of corporate power that is choking average hard working americans.

[Samantha]

51. Do you think John Kerry might be willing to become involved?

Who do you think might be willing to wade in, what Dems?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

37. Absolutely!

[salin]

39. For those conservos who point to this as a "liberal judge" thing

ask how they think Bush appointee Patricia CorporationsAlwaysHaveMoreRights ThanIndividuals Owens would have ruled were she on the court.

[rucky]

53. that's not very comforting

i hate resorting to the "two wrongs make a right" way of thinking. the SCOTUS let us down again - pure and simple.

[jfern]

54. DU and FreeRepublic agree

Has this ever happened before?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1429140/posts

[theboss]

58. So...we want more Scalias and Thomases?

You haven't thought this through as an issue.