President Bush Blocks Federal Eminent Domain Abuses

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Wholly Goats

I honestly don't see that a local government exercising eminent domain in order to advance the interests of private parties is a legitimate use of the power. Can you provide me that rationalization, Scarlatti?

If it was solely to advance the interests of private parties, which in this case it clearly wasn't, then I can understand you not seeing a legitimate use of power.

Perhaps a better question might be, "When does the exercise of eminent domain for public use not benefit a private party?" Even building a highway is going to benefit private parties (contractors).

Can you then tell me why it can't, or shouldn't, be used as in the instance proposed in the case of Justice Souter's New Hampshire home?

Because that is textbook frivolousness, barely reasonable and purely designed for harassment.

eta:

I'm not interested in defending the outcome in Kelo, but I'm more than happy to defend its reasoning. The only reason I posted in this thread was to point out the absurdity of labelling it an "activist" decision.

It's easy to condemn (no pun intended) the outcome, but not so easy to deconstruct the internal logic, which involves decades, if not centuries, of precedent.

More to the point, I think, is that judges don't simply pull these things out of their collective asses. The Connecticut Supreme Court opinion that the USSC reviewed is 138 pages long, and goes into excruciating detail on the specifics of the local project, public policy, deference to legislative findings, analysis of the legislative framework against both state and federal constitutional provisions, etc., etc.

One of the ironies is that Justice O'Connor, who dissented in Kelo, wrote one of the opinions* that both the Connecticut courts and the USSC relied on in reaching their determinations, which essentially set the table for Kelo.

* Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff.

[Wholly Goats]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Because that is textbook frivolousness, barely reasonable and purely designed for harassment.

Excuse me, but it was indeed frivolous, but eminently reasonable. Would not Justice Souter's home provide a greater public benefit as a hotel than as his private home? The same arguments apply here as to condemning private property in New London for the building of a shopping center. It was designed to make a point, and I think it made it quite well.

And when was the last time a public road was turned over to a private for-profit organization to raise revenue? Can you cite me a real example?

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Wholly Goats

Excuse me, but it was indeed frivolous, but eminently reasonable.

But if it's reasonable, then it isn't frivolous.

Would not Justice Souter's home provide a greater public benefit as a hotel than as his private home?

I don't think so. It will be a far greater public benefit in a few decades when it's opened to the public as a memorial to Justice Souter's legacy. Future use is part of the eminent domain/public use calculus as well.

[Wholly Goats]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

But if it's reasonable, then it isn't frivolous.

It was frivolous because I'm fairly sure that anyone who read the prospectus regarding the "Lost Liberty Hotel" would have known that it was done in jest. But that does not exclude it from the bounds of common sense...in other words, it was a potentially reasonable request, given the powers which the SCOTUS had assured with the Kelo decision.

And don't tell me one cannot make a valid point with humor, as you engage in it with some frequency.

I don't think so. It will be a far greater public benefit in a few decades when it's opened to the public as a memorial to Justice Souter's legacy. Future use is part of the eminent domain/public use calculus as well.

Whoa! And you think that as many people would pay good money to visit the home of some fusty old SCOTUS justice at some indefinite date in the future? Hell, I live in the PNW and I still have no idea where Justice Douglas' home is or whether they even offer tours. And I'm just an slightly better educated member of the non-legal professional masses. But a chance to rent a room in the "Lost Liberty Hotel"? Wacka! Even if the rubes didn't have a half a brain (like Lyin'Dan), they might still take the opportunity to pay good money to stay in a nice B&B type hotel in New Hampshire. Particularly if they had decent muffins at breakfast.

Your calculus sucks, Scarlatti. The future use as a fusty, musty old memorial to some obscure justice just doesn't rate with a booming B&B hotel. Get with the program, man!

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Wholly Goats

Your calculus sucks, Scarlatti. The future use as a fusty, musty old memorial to some obscure justice just doesn't rate with a booming B&B hotel. Get with the program, man!

I can't tell whether you're being facetious or not, but the calculus is not mine, it's the Supreme Court's.

[Wholly Goats]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

I can't tell whether you're being facetious or not, but the calculus is not mine, it's the Supreme Court's.

Then they've got an over-inflated sense of self-importance.

Not surprising, considering.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Wholly Goats

Then they've got an over-inflated sense of self-importance.

Not surprising, considering.

What sort of tests (not examples) would you propose to determine what is and isn't "public use"?