<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener("load", function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <iframe src="http://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID=12201415&amp;blogName=The+Limburg+Letter&amp;publishMode=PUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT&amp;navbarType=BLUE&amp;layoutType=CLASSIC&amp;searchRoot=http%3A%2F%2Fbrashlimburg.blogspot.com%2Fsearch&amp;blogLocale=en_US&amp;homepageUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fbrashlimburg.blogspot.com%2F" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" height="30px" width="100%" id="navbar-iframe" allowtransparency="true" title="Blogger Navigation and Search"></iframe> <div></div>

Thursday, June 23, 2005

While You Were Busy Protesting The Patriot Act...

...the government took your house. I'm sure the residents of New London, Connecticut will be happy to know that while their houses are being demolished, their library records will be safely locked away.

I hate to comment on a Supreme Court ruling before the actual opinion is released, but this is too outrageous to let simmer:

"A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights."
The case in a nutshell is that the city was suing individual homeowners who refused to sell their homes in order to make way for corporate development.The city's main contention was that the case fit within "the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for 'public use.'" Although the city planned to build a large corporate center, they argued that the additional jobs and tax revenues would serve the public, and therefore fulfilled the "public use" condition.

If you've been drinking the Left's Kool-Aid, you'd reasonably assume that the liberal judges on the court stood up for the little guy, while conservative ogres like Scalia and Thomas sided with big business. Hell, they probably volunteered to drive the bulldozers.

Open your eyes Little One, it's time to wake up to your socialist paradise.

What the Left didn't tell you is that the little guy is only worth protecting if he belongs to some larger, underprivileged group. The plaintiffs in this case were small business owners, and lived in Victorian Era houses; the state should be redistributing their wealth, not protecting it. Individual rights be damned, the greater good must prevail, the bourgeois must be defeated, the Motherland must survive!!!

Whoa, got a little wrapped up in the character there. At any rate let's look on the bright side: sure you're homeless, but Justice Ginsburg and the rest of the ACLU will defend your right to squat in the library, and anything you read while you're there will be strictly confidential.

34 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Governments have gotten away with this in fits and starts for decades (see Poletown.)

Now it's been sanctioned by the Supreme Court, and the statement of the majority seems to give exceptionally broad latitude to municipalities to define 'public purpose'.

It's a threat and an insult, of course, and perhaps it's too much to hope that this ruling will finally bring the public agitation needed to shut down this practice.

Failing that, I guess we'd all best invest in bulldozer manufacturers and strip-mall developers...

6/23/2005 09:56:00 AM  
Blogger OXEN said...

I wonder how many time the phrase "It's for the children" was used?

And I bet Hillary is happy today.

Hillary Clinton: "We're Going to Take Things Away From You on Behalf of the Common Good"

6/23/2005 10:05:00 AM  
Blogger Brash Limburg said...

"Failing that, I guess we'd all best invest in bulldozer manufacturers and strip-mall developers... "

I love it, you just can't keep a good capitalist down.

6/23/2005 10:06:00 AM  
Blogger Brash Limburg said...

Oxen,
Of course. Don't forget, "It Takes a Village". I'm just surprised to learn that the village has to be leveled.

6/23/2005 10:07:00 AM  
Blogger OXEN said...

Real estate agent--..........And as you can see over there we have the largest mall in the Tri-state area. If you look to your left you'll see the largest Wal-Mart in five counties. Just past that we have our brand new NASCAR track....

Potential buyer-- But where are your houses? We drove all this all this way because we were interested in buying a home here.

Real estate agent-- Oh, we don't have any houses here.

6/23/2005 10:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Chairman eDog said...

"Failing that, I guess we'd all best invest in bulldozer manufacturers and strip-mall developers... "

Or guns.

6/23/2005 10:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Js said...

Great post Brash. I wonder how the soldiers in the book 1776 would have felt if they knew they were fighting for a government which would one day have the power to take their home.

6/23/2005 10:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WWTJD?

6/23/2005 11:52:00 AM  
Blogger Nedhead said...

Umm, I can't speak for everyone, but the Lefties I know are up in arms about this kind of activity. It has been going on for a while, and I don't feel it is acceptable. If the property owners wish to sell out on their own, bless 'em. But to have the town come in and force them, sick!

But you know what, who do you think is the driving force behind this type of activity? It couldn't be the real estate developers could it (Mack-Cali anyone)? Or the big business anxious to fill a presumed void (WalMart, per chance)? Have any of you seen the dog and pony shows that are put on in front of governing bodies? Used car salespeople are amateurs, trust me. All kinds of fancy pictures, charts and promises of money. This is capitalism at its best, and it has infiltrated the Supreme Court. Why are Conservatives unhappy? Shouldn't the victories of big business be satisfactory? Or am I missing something?

6/23/2005 11:53:00 AM  
Blogger Nedhead said...

BTW, wasn't this country founded on the taking of property? The cheaper the better, no? Don't we still have squatters rights laws on the books? Wonder why?

6/23/2005 12:16:00 PM  
Anonymous MCH said...

Talk about Homeland INsecurity!

All the folks I know, ESPECIALLY THOSE ON THE LEFT, are pissed off about this. Yet another decision that takes away the average joe's civil rights in favor of lining the pockets of big business.

Brash, you're full of bull if you try to paint this as an "Us vs. Them" thing. This is a true bipartisan issue. No sane American, regardless of political ideology, should be in favor of this travesty.

6/23/2005 12:44:00 PM  
Blogger Brash Limburg said...

MCH,
I have no doubt that Average Joes of both political stripes are angry about this decision. That said, the liberal intellectuals on the court (Ginsberg, Souter, etc.) are just following their philosophy to its logical conclusion.

I don't have to make it an Us vs. Them thing, the 5-4 ruling already has.

6/23/2005 12:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Steve said...

To all the liberals who are complaining about this decision, guess what- live by an expansive interpretation of the Constitution; die by an expansive interpretation of the Constitution.

This is not a “bipartisan” issue. This is the very thing Republicans have been complaining about for decades. This is the reason we fought against the Democrats using the filibuster on our judicial nominees. This is the reason we decry “judicial activism.”

For decades liberals have made an art form out of twisting the Constitution to make it say anything they wanted it to say. Hope you are happy with the results.

6/23/2005 01:02:00 PM  
Blogger Howard said...

A great opening line, but if we don't get off our asses we deserve everything that happens. I posted today complete with addresses to start writing, but starting ain't finishing. I'm sure the Republicans will concentrate on flag burning, the horrors of abortion, and why they can't block the filibuster (gosh it kept lynching going for a hundred years, where would we be without it?) unless we let them know that we won't vote for them again, ever, if they don't pass a law that stops this one. They had no problem with the brain dead Shavio. Want to bet they have the balls to act on this one? Worst case, maybe enough of them can strap on a dildo and pretend masculinity for a few hours.

6/23/2005 01:09:00 PM  
Blogger Nedhead said...

Easy, Steve, as I have said, this is a result of Capitalism run amok. Real estate developers and corporate giants pushing the gullible little town councils into taking this kind of action. And by the way, this type of thing happens more than you may care to know, at the hands of republican AND democrat governing bodies.

Funny, Steve, are you saying that Conservatives don't interpret the constitution? Again, look through history, America is all about taking property for the good of the country. This is not a new interpretation!

Also, to play both sides of this argument. What if your town had a little town center and got state funding to clean up and beautify the neighborhood. You know, paver bricks, shade trees, benches, new building facades, public parking and the like. And the town has the consent of all but one piece of shit property right smack in the middle to the planned improvement. It is a shitty little outhouse of a building. In a state of disrepair? What would you do as the mayor of that town? Work around it? Stop the whole project? As a conservative (or liberal), wouldn't you want to invigorate a commercial center? Wouldn't you want to attract business to your town?

6/23/2005 01:19:00 PM  
Blogger Brash Limburg said...

Ned,
"You know, paver bricks, shade trees, benches, new building facades, public parking and the like."

That would be a pretty clear example of "public use", this case is not.

6/23/2005 01:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Steve said...

Ned,

Thanks, but as a solicitor for several townships I think I know how the process works.

"Steve, are you saying that Conservatives don't interpret the constitution?"

Of course conservatives interpret the Constitution, just not in the expansive way that liberals do. Read Thomas's dissent. Conservatives believe the words "public use" in the Fifth Amendment should not be interpreted to apply this broadly, but should be limited by what they meant at the time they were written in 1789.

"Again, look through history, America is all about taking property for the good of the country. This is not a new interpretation!"

Again, you are wrong. This is a new, expansive interpretation of the 5th, unheard of until about 50 years ago. Eminent domain has always existed, but this goes well beyond its traditional limits. If this wasn't a new development in takings jurisprudence, the case would have never made it to the Supreme Court.

6/23/2005 01:26:00 PM  
Blogger Nedhead said...

Yeah, you're all correct. I was being contrarian and couldn't really support my argument. Mea Culpa.

6/23/2005 01:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Posted this comment elsewhere once, but I'll throw it out here too:

The Supreme Court has now validated the concept of local governments seizing property from one owner and selling it to another for the purpose of raising tax revenue.

Out here in California we've got Prop 13. Which means someone who's been in their house for thirty years is paying bupkus in property tax, and someone who buys next door pays several times as much (in part to make up for what the other guy isn't paying, but as I'm nominally a Prop 13 booster I'll drop that one right there.)

Everyone in the state of California should go research the property rolls in their town, find some property that you might like to own (perhaps the home of a local city council member or TV station reporter) that hasn't changed hands in 25 years or so. Make up a nice PowerPoint presentation and some cash-flow projections for how the city will benefit from seizing that house/business/whatever and selling it to you. Go pitch it to the local government, maybe hire a firm of decently-dressed attorneys to help you with it.

And, of course, the Supremes say it's all one hundred percent legit.

6/23/2005 02:12:00 PM  
Blogger Crackpot Press said...

Isn't this the same Supreme Court who elected Bush? I think if someone tried to bulldoze my house I would excercise my 2nd Amemendment right.

But I make under $200k a year and live in California. So something tells me this probably won't affect me to much

Congrats on the Malkin thing!!

6/23/2005 04:27:00 PM  
Blogger Q said...

GREAT opening line. Classic.

6/25/2005 11:01:00 AM  
Blogger Pooooooper said...

The vote was 5-4. Of the 5 Supremes who voted for the ruling, 3 were appointed by Republicans. As a matter of fact, 7 of the 9 Supremes on the bench have been appointed by Republicans. How can this be painted as a Liberal initative?

Chief Jackoff William H. Rehnquist (born 1924, appointed by Richard Nixon in 1971 and elevated by Ronald Reagan in 1986);
Justice John Paul Stevens (born 1920, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975);
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (born 1930, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981);
Justice Antonin Scalia (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986);
Justice Anthony Kennedy (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1988);
Justice David Souter (born 1939, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1990);
Justice Clarence Thomas (born 1948, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1991).
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (born 1933, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993);
Justice Stephen Breyer (born 1938, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994);

6/26/2005 09:21:00 AM  
Blogger Greg Mills said...

Brash --
Good post. Wondering if you could help a brother out with some conceptual continuity.

You (rightly) are pissed off by the eminent domain fiasco. Private property should be sacred.

My question is, is privacy sacred?

Private property is sacred because it is capital that has been created through the work of whoever owns it. It is the essense of what it means to own.

But do we "own" transactions and agreements between private parties? Are these fair game? (Aside from conspiring to distribute PCP to pre-schools)

Because aren't these things intellectual capital, that we can use for our own comfort as we see fit, like a backyard?

I'm a bit confused by your rage at the interferrence of government with personal concrete capital and your glee at the full force of the Federal government coming down on one person, Michael Shiavo. Maybe if he was running a Pizza Hut you'd cut him a break.

Conservatism USED to be about defending the private against the collective: Buckley, Mencken, et al. Now it's a weird hybrid of socialized morality and private capital.

6/26/2005 10:37:00 AM  
Blogger Greg Mills said...

And just to be pedantic.. throw national corporatised capital into that mix.

6/26/2005 10:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Online adult sex shop. Come and browse over 900 quality items. We have a great selection of Anal Toys, *KEYWORD** including Anal Toys Anal Toys Anal Toys Anal Toys and Anal Toys all ready for immediate dispatch today.Anal Toys

11/04/2005 08:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dicky Pacifier Dummy Treat Your lover this ChristmasDicky Pacifier Dummy

11/10/2005 03:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well done!
[url=http://hyfdkndg.com/nghn/mvnl.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://bsmowted.com/nfal/cthy.html]Cool site[/url]

7/19/2006 05:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great work!
My homepage | Please visit

7/19/2006 05:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you!
http://hyfdkndg.com/nghn/mvnl.html | http://ywlbjlho.com/jofo/bvmn.html

7/19/2006 05:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lolita chin
lolitas 13
lolitas kid
free anal sex
lolita picture
lolita suck
lolita cp terra loltobbs ftp lol
lolita vip lolitas virgins bbs
lolita lolly fuck movie children
lolita chin
lolitas 13
lolitas kid
free anal sex
lolita picture
lolita suck
lolita cp terra loltobbs ftp lol
lolita vip lolitas virgins bbs
lolita lolly fuck movie children

2/18/2007 11:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cruise tahiti

2/25/2007 04:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NSU - 4efer, 5210 - rulez

3/02/2007 04:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

miley cyrus nude miley cyrus nude miley cyrus nude

11/03/2009 08:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

free trial of viagra too much viagra viagra women effects of viagra online viagra viagra cheap price iframe how does viagra work cheap viagra canada sample of viagra viagra canada how long does viagra last viagra vs cialis what is generic viagra marijuana and viagra

11/13/2009 07:34:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home