[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by ms_ann_thrope

I'll agree that being put out of one's home is being put out of one's home. That much is the same.

I sympathize and agree with you both. Sadly, mental anguish is irrelevant to current case law. As the law now stands the state is not obligated to consider mental anguish when booting people off their land.

If we outlaw Em Domain for private use, then mental anguish would doubtless be a consideration in the ensuing lawsuits. Let that thought sustain us!

See, that's where I disagree. I would have preferred that the Court be less deferential to local government on something that I think is such an important issue and have just said, "Look, New London, based on the patriotic American ideal of home = castle, what you are doing is just wrong and is a far stretch from what the Framers intended when they authored the Fifth Amendment." In other words, in ms_ann_thrope's parallel universe, SCOTUS is not deferential to the state on this issue, refuses to expand the definition of "public use," and spanks the legislature. They totally could have gone that way! That's why I was citing Lawrence earlier, because the Kennedy opinion was really an ethos/aspirational argument, and I would've like to see Kelo decided similarly.

If the choice was between throwing it back to the state or for the Court to expand the "public use" definition, then I would agree that throwing it back to the state is preferable. But really, I think that the ms_ann_thrope parallel universe was the way the court should have gone.

I believe the best and only fix is by constitutional amendment. Otherwise the liberal activist judges will seize upon any chance to overturn or ignore any law we get passed. Only an amendment will prevent judicial activism.

Translated into plain English that means don't vote for Democrats! Only one political party is responsible for judicial activism in support of eminent domain.

Usually courts interpret it to mean the fair market value of the property --- in other words, roughly, if you put it on the market today, what you'd likely get for it. In CA, a property owner facing an eminent domain condemnation is entitled to have just compensation determined by a jury. I have no idea about the laws in other states...

In California it doesn't work as it should. If it did then the magnitude of compensation would be much, much greater. I am thinking of a case involving land owned by a church in the San Diego area. The county wanted it for the benefit of a Costco (a store chain favored by liberal democrats). We stopped them in court. The petty amount the country offered was pitiful.

.
.
.Don't like Eminent Domain for private use? Vote Republican.