This is one of the worst assalts on private property since this country became a country!

The policy itself was horrible, but it's a state's rights issue. The 5th Amendment says only that the victim of emminent domain must be adequately compensated.

No one should make the mistake of defining Capitalism as a noble ideology. It isn't. Capitalism is, by definition, a social system that, due to technological advancements which took place during the Industrial Revolution, has allowed the means of production to be centralized into the hands of a wealthy minority, or Capitalists. What we see in this example is the state intervening on behalf of the Capitalists in the Pfizer corporation (who hold greater political power) to appropriate property from non-Capitalists so the land in question can be developed. The losses of this procedure, of course, would fall disproportionately on the poorest residents. I don't see how any liberal or left-winger of any stripe could support this. A genuine liberal would want to moderate the Capitalist system, not allow it such extreme excesses. UPDATE: One of the underpinnings of Rawls' philosophy was the principle of fairness. He believed in greater economic egalitarianism. What we see in this instance is a transference of land from poor to rich. This decision is not consistent with his philosophy and not consistent with contemporary liberal philosophy in general, intellectual and lay variants alike.

Let me take the time to concur in part with Magellan's post (considering we do so once a every two months or so...LOL)- this ruling shows an absolute disregard for the truly fundamental principles of the Bill of Rights. However I need to stress the difference between the actions of the Supreme Court and the actions of the Executive Branch of government- the executive branch is acting within the accordance of its constitutional authority, the judiciary is not. And unlike previous accusations leveled toward neo-conservatives liberal jurists are expanding the power of the judiciary and government through unconstitutional rulings from an unelected branch- they are imposing their ideology upon the citizenry through unwarranted decisions. I personally am a strict constitutionalist- meaning I believe that it is wholly the intent- not the spirit- of the constitution that is most important. This is why I never argue that the unborn are protected by the 14th Amendment and 5th Amendments like some Natural Law theorists have. This is why I take a very unpopular stance on the Brown v Board decision. Liberals though they profess to cloak themselves in constitutional warrant lack one- and that is truly apparent in this case. Public use originally was always regarded as that which directly is used for public works not that the use would have some public benefit. The liberal block of the Court simply does not care about the fabric of the Constitution. Think about it: through the rights and privileges clause of the 14th Amendment liberal claim the right to sexual license is fundamental that the right to an abortion is fundamental yet now the explicit right to property is NOT! Now the explicit right to property is arbitrary and can be usurped by the will of local governments to assume for its domain (and consequently use as paybacks for huge lobby donations). This ruling is absolutely remarkable in its hubris and folly. *****Update, I believe the argument that this is unfettered capitalism is highly untenable. Captialism requires a respect individual choice in the free market and a legal respect for the moral principle of private ownership. The utilization of political power to dominate private individual ownership is akin to fascism- a morally nihilistic effort to advance the cause of the state. The fact the liberal ideology in its most degenerated form is in concert with this fascist effort and that three branches of government colluded to validate the effort is most troubling. ****Update, Irish, just because the issue involves the pursuit of money doesn't make it capitalistic. Chavez in Venezuela nationalized all public works and national resource companies- that move wasn't a move toward capitalism- nor would you consider the activities of the Gambino crime syndicate capitalism either- it's pure nihilism for personal gain. Capitalism is predicated upon certain necessary moral principles: dignity for all individuals, the respect for individual choice within the market place etc. Those who seek to manipulate the process to benefit themselves unfairly are simply not engaging in capitalist ventures.***** Update, to cont... aren't any of you lay liberals findly waking up and realizing that this hopeless canard of protecting the little guy is a scam- a total lie to impose a liberal code of ethics on society through an unelected branch of govt and trash the constitutional order? ***** It must be noted that the liberals on the court voted for this and the conservatives against it. The reason lay-liberals are so baffled by this is because they have no idea what liberal ideology is really about at it's core. I suggest that some of you read Rawls or Dworkin and you'll get a clue. Deontological liberals have no respect for the process- for dialogue. What is right is predetermined and supercedes democracy and the will of the people. Therefore there are no fundamental individual property rights for the individual- but rather for the community on a whole- to seek a predetemined idea was is right. This case is just and attempt to set precedent for the futher dissolution of our constitutional system by a tyrannical branch of government.

My husband was talking about this one this morning to me. Yikes. Yeah, I know a strip mall would generate more revenue in taxes than a bunch of houses, but I'm sure the homeowners don't really CARE all that much! I wouldn't want someone to knock on my door and tell me to move out so they could build a parking garage. UPDATE: Oh, you guys have to read this; apparently, a guy named Logan Darrow Clements is using this case to try to build a hotel . . . at the address of one of the Justice's house. If it's true, I can't say that I'm entirely too sympathetic. http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Awful, awful, awful jurisprudence. What happened to the party that looks out for the little guy? The strongest and most cogent rationale for appointing more conservative justices to the Supreme Court. There are currently 4 conservatives on the Supreme Court and Bill Clinton appointed only 2 of the current 9. Every conservative gets Borked, did Bader-Ginsburg? She was approved on the first up-or-down vote, as ridiculously liberal was her judicial track record. Every nominee is entitled to an up-or-down vote.

A very troubling case, one which I would argue abandons certain limitations on government power that has been at the heart of our constitutional order. Here the court ruled that it's okay for developers to unilaterally take property from residents provided that they get just compensation. This is known as the principle of eminent domain, a highly contentious issue that many citizens regard as a raw exercise in government power. At times the government can exercise such a power for the general will: people have been deprived of their property in the name of building new roads, dams, railroads, utilities etc. In each case, the public was deprived of their property for the public good, of course, special interests like contractors always benefit from this too. However this case is far more troubling. This case expands the notion of the public interest in a way that ensures that no one's property is safe for any extended period of time. It is ironic that the court uses such logic, for by citing the use of takings for public use, they are actually in the process breaking down that same public-private distinction that defines land-use policy. In short, the court here is watering down the entire notion of private property. That's what's truly disturbing about the whole matter. In this case, a city decided that they wanted to develop waterfront property owned by private citizens, for it would gain more tax receipts by re-zoning it from a residential to commercial use property. In supporting this action, the court argued that the intent of the city was in the public good and that the economic gain incurred justified the use of eminent domain. However, if enhancing taxes alone justifies taking property from private citizens, where does this power to confiscate property stop? Eminent domain has been upheld in cases where certain situation did unambiguous harm to the community, whether it is the concentration of land in a few hands or urban slums that needed to be re-developed out of health concerns. The harm principle here simply does not apply, as opposed; the government and a few companies are getting all the benefits here at the expense of private property owners. The expansive definition of public use here threatens the protection of private property as the founders understood that to be. Is expanding the government's tax base also truly in the public interest, as the court claims? Additional revenues gained by the city could very well be wasted or the quality of life could very well be diminished by overdevelopment. Who are the players here? Who is defining what is in the public interest? Indeed, a close examination of these two questions reveal that private lobbies--developers who seek to make great profit and city officials who want to fill their treasury with more money that may or may not go towards the general will of the population are the ones defining the public interest. Of course, as Lance and Magellan point out, the irony is also not lost on me that it was the liberal members of the court who ruled in favor of these interests. Suppose that this land had been protected wilderness, the liberal members would have ruled against the developers on the grounds that the good of general population outweighed the desires of a few, and thus would have ruled to protect the environment, and correctly so of course. Of course, there is a wider point to be made here. Issues like zoning policy, environmental health, and localism are often ignored, especially when a small group of specific interests stand to make a huge windfall. The bulldozers in such cases stand ready to destroy established communities. Indeed the truth of the matter is that government has always been willing to sacrifice the individual for power or money. Indeed, whether rich or poor, no one should be forced to surrender their land to the government or developers except under extreme circumstances. The overriding interest has to be compelling and the public benefit has to be so wide and clear that it removes any sort of reasonable doubt on the matter. Let's challenge another assumption now. Is development always a good thing necessarily? Should our rural communities, forests, and wetlands truly be sacrificed for another strip mall or condo development? The natural gifts that we have inherited do have an inherent value that aggregates over time. As opposed, aggressive development policies stand to reap short term benefits to only a select few at the expense of many.

This is disgusting. Capitalism and greed at its absolute worst. UPDATE: I would make the argument here that this is capitalism, the dark underbelly of capitalism that few of us want to acknowledge. Yes, I understand the communist/big government argument, but consider the market forces driving this and the venal side of capitalism is there in all its clarity. UPDATE TWO: I take the points made by Lance and Magellan and others, but I stand by my comment that this is the dark side of capitalism. (And surely, guys, you're not going to argue it doesn't have one. I know you're smarter than that.) What is driving this agenda? Follow the money. UPDATE THREE: I agree Lance that not all issues that involve the pursuit of money are capitalistic. I simply contend that this one is.

This is absolutely insane. So Walmart can lobby my local councilman that they can make more money with my property than me, and I can be booted out of my house? Heading towards a police state, folks. This is what you get when you have a big government (conservative) President and a big government (liberal) Supreme Court. You get roll backs in individual liberty. I'll say this for the Supreme Court however - at least they understand what conservative and liberal are supposed to mean. I wish someone would tell GWB, so we can have SOME checks on the exploding US government. *** And this ain't capitalism. There's nothing in capitalism about government land grabs. In fact, this is the opposite of capitalism, as land grab policies discourage investment. In a capitalist society, businesses would be expected to offer a price to the homeowners that they would willingly accept, no matter how high that price might be. Kelo vs. New London is GWB style, Big Government Knows Best policy.