Alabama Fights Back Against SCOTUS
As opposed to Wisconsin. The only firing back here will be police shooting landowners foolish enough to try to keep their homes and properties.
Here they will be working for the next few months with various groups and individuals (with large state maps and proof of financial backing) to divvy up all of the properties they are going to steal-ooooppps I mean take for the public good.
This will be the biggest land grab since they let loose the folks in the Oklahoma Territory.
I just love how they always have a sign that lets you know what they are doing for you. If my wife had an affair with one of these pols, I wonder if he( or she
) would put out a sign that said “Banging your wife”.
Thanks for looking out for us.
Ironic, that as Alabama passes (and other states push into the legislative process) statutes protecting their citizens from unfair seizure of their property, we cheer this as a “blow in the battle against the Supreme Court”. Ironic, because this is what the court told us to do:
“We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose “public use” requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised.”
From here, if you want to look it up:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108Frankly, we could look at Kelo as a victory for states rights. If your state legislators aren’t protecting you, fire ‘em, and hire some who will.
Posted by powersti
08/06/2005 at 10:10 AM
POWERSTI: I read the full opinion right after the ruling and I thought then, and still do, that the decision was wrong on a number of levels. It seems to me that SCOTUS went overboard. The ruling was the equivalent of saying “we declare murder legal but states may impose limits on that by passing laws to punish certain kinds of murder”. SCOTUS should not have pushed the bar out so far that the states had to do something. There are some concepts that are universal in this country, land ownership is one of them - as is murder.
What happens when some jerkwater town takes offense at the state laws and sues the state in order to snatch property? Will it make it to the Supreme Court and what will they say then? There is more smoke and mirrors in this ruling than there are clear decisions. SCOTUS is pretending to be the Oracle of Delphi and issuing ambiguous rulings which can be taken a number of ways and will only promote further litigation.
That’s just my two-cents.
