Newest Supreme Court ruling

Typically, when there's a ruling from the Supreme Court, it cuts down on how much attorneys can make, b/c there is binding precedent on that body of law (hence, not too much to argue about.)

Why this feeling that lawyers are going to profit so much from this?

 

I'm a Reagan guy but a Bush guy too.......but Bush won't agree with this ruling. I don't know how anybody could except a developer and city officials.

One of these people in the ruling had lived in their riverfront home since 1918.....

I heard Walter Williams, a good free-market conservative talking about this and he said he can't understand everyone's outrage because the government has been doing this for years anyway. We don't pay our property taxes one year (really 2) and they seize our homes.......we agreed to property taxes which has led to this ruling. Basically that we already allowed the government to infringe on private property rights so much already that it's too late to go crazy now.

 

Except in this case, even if you do pay your taxes, they can just take it in the interests of the "public good," which is a bit too broad for most people.

 

Contained Chaos,

This was an outrageous decision... the type that gives liberal justices a bad name.

I've talked to many internet and live folks today, and I can't find a single person who agrees with it.

Small store owners now are at the mercy of politicians who can be bought off by larger store chains. Mom-and-pop have no defense against WalMart.

The upside for George Bush on this one? Well now he can say that his crooked machinations to screw the Mathes family out of their land to build a stadium for the Rangers in Arlington was all within constitutional principles.

Congress should get to work immediately to shore up Eminent Domain with a constitutional amendment to overturn today's travesty. Stop wasting our time with that flag-desecration nonsense.

 

Bingo, SabanFan...we have a winner.

 

Yes, but similar cases can be banged about the lower courts for several years, until the US Supreme Court is ~7 to 2 (conservative leaning vs. liberal leaning) by 2008. Then it's a whole new ballgame!

 

That's not really how it works though. The seizing proponents simply need to cite that case (and any others obviously), and it largely ties the hands of lower courts.

Of course, this could embolden more governments to steal more from their electorate, which could result in law suits. But going back to my earlier point, the cases will be more short-lived than before today's ruling.

 

Yep. Except in all cases now, the 5th Amendment should read "PRIVATE USE" because that's what they did. They are taking private property and using it for Private means.

Taking homes to build more expensive homes to get more tax money is all this is.

 

I'm sure there will be quite a few people who have to be forcible removed.. You try to steal my home and me and the boys down the road might be setting up a road block and you better bring your guns.

 

This may just be a knee jerk reaction by me, but having read this, it seems the older I get, some of those boys in Montana and the Dakota's wearing camoflauge don't appear as crazy as I once thought they were.