Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens defends his majority opinion
High Court Refuses To Review Ruling On Eminent Domain Case
8/25/05
Livestock Weekly
Copyright 2005
WASHINGTON —(AP)— The U.S. Supreme Court, given a chance to revisit a heavily criticized ruling, refused Monday to reconsider its decision giving local governments more power to seize people's homes for economic development.
So contentious was the court's narrow 5-4 ruling in the eminent domain case earlier this year that some critics launched a campaign to seize Justice David Souter's farmhouse in New Hampshire to build a luxury hotel. Others singled out Justice Stephen Breyer's vacation home in the same state for use as a park.
Both Souter and Breyer voted on the prevailing side. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose decision to retire created the opening that Washington lawyer John Roberts now seeks to fill, wrote in her angry dissent of June that "the specter of condemnation hangs over all property."
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion and defended it last week in a speech in Las Vegas. The ruling was legally correct, he said, because the high court has "always allowed local policy-makers wide latitude in determining how best to achieve legitimate public goals."
But Stevens said he had concerns about the results.
"My own view is that the allocation of economic resources that result from the free play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public officials," Stevens told the Clark County Bar Association.
Legal experts had said they did not expect the court's ruling, involving an economic development project in New London, Conn., to prompt a rush to claim homes.
Stevens said that "the public outcry that greeted (the ruling, Kelo v. City of New London) is some evidence that the political process is up to the task of addressing such policy concerns."
In Texas and several other states, that outcry quickly led to legislative limits on eminent domain powers.
Texas Senate Bill 7 went to Gov. Rick Perry’s office for his signature late last week. The bill specifically prohibits the use of eminent domain by any “governmental or private entity” to take private property for the benefit of another private party. It also applies the prohibition to any “public use that is merely a pretext to confer a private benefit,” as well as to most “economic development” projects.
© 2005 Livestock Weekly: www.livestockweekly.com
To search TTC News Archives clickHERE
To view the Trans-Texas Corridor Blog clickHERE
8/25/05
Livestock Weekly
Copyright 2005
WASHINGTON —(AP)— The U.S. Supreme Court, given a chance to revisit a heavily criticized ruling, refused Monday to reconsider its decision giving local governments more power to seize people's homes for economic development.
So contentious was the court's narrow 5-4 ruling in the eminent domain case earlier this year that some critics launched a campaign to seize Justice David Souter's farmhouse in New Hampshire to build a luxury hotel. Others singled out Justice Stephen Breyer's vacation home in the same state for use as a park.
Both Souter and Breyer voted on the prevailing side. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose decision to retire created the opening that Washington lawyer John Roberts now seeks to fill, wrote in her angry dissent of June that "the specter of condemnation hangs over all property."
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion and defended it last week in a speech in Las Vegas. The ruling was legally correct, he said, because the high court has "always allowed local policy-makers wide latitude in determining how best to achieve legitimate public goals."
But Stevens said he had concerns about the results.
"My own view is that the allocation of economic resources that result from the free play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public officials," Stevens told the Clark County Bar Association.
Legal experts had said they did not expect the court's ruling, involving an economic development project in New London, Conn., to prompt a rush to claim homes.
Stevens said that "the public outcry that greeted (the ruling, Kelo v. City of New London) is some evidence that the political process is up to the task of addressing such policy concerns."
In Texas and several other states, that outcry quickly led to legislative limits on eminent domain powers.
Texas Senate Bill 7 went to Gov. Rick Perry’s office for his signature late last week. The bill specifically prohibits the use of eminent domain by any “governmental or private entity” to take private property for the benefit of another private party. It also applies the prohibition to any “public use that is merely a pretext to confer a private benefit,” as well as to most “economic development” projects.
© 2005 Livestock Weekly:
To search TTC News Archives click
To view the Trans-Texas Corridor Blog click
posted by Porkus Maximus Tex: at Thursday, August 25, 2005
<< Home