‘Socialism’ and eminent domain

Aerik Knapp-Loomis (11/15, Letters) blames conservative politicians for doing nothing to stop eminent domain, which he calls a form of “socialism.”

It was the “socialist” members of the Supreme Court (John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer) who voted in June 2005 to allow local governments to force property owners to sell and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project’s success is not guaranteed.

Because of this decision — conservatives William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O’Connor voted against it — conservative politicians have been barred from doing anything to protect private property.

Thus, they need not forever hold their “hypocritical tongues.”

Rex Hargis
Shawnee

Comments

[KC news Hound]

tif and eminent domain have become no more than a tool for the rich to get richer surprise. He who has the gold make the rules until the people rebel. Then a new person gets the gold and the rules.

[solomon]

good morning little p,

I agree that Kelo was a great injustice. What is the other case you consider in saying the two worst?

[pmcw]

Well said Rex. I wrote a similar sentiment and had to work hard to keep it to the required 150 words. The case in question was Kelo versus New London. One of the residents had lived there since her birth in 1918. Adding insult to injury is the town paid only a fraction of fair value. This was one of the two worst Supreme Court verdicts in the history of the U.S. It was flat and obviously unconstitutional!

In an effort to prove Souter, the judge who wrote the opinion for the majority, a wealthy developer proposed a massive development that would require the condemnation of Souter's estate. Guess what, it didn't happen... Limo liberals.