| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| Supreme Court Limits Rights Of Property Owners |
| 2017-06-24 |
| [Daily Caller] The Supreme Court constrained the rights of property owners Friday, establishing a test that favors government officials in assessing the loss of property value caused by government regulations. Writing for a 5-3 court, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that state and local officials can combine separate parcels of land in assessing whether local government has effectively seized private property through regulation, requiring compensation. Kennedy’s opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts filed a fiery dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The case concerned a Wisconsin family called the Murrs, who argued that the government has unconstitutionally taken their land by refusing to allow them to sell it. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #7 ..Dred Scott, Slaughterhouse, Plessy... A long and undistinguished record of less than perfect. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2017-06-24 23:12 |
| #6 This should go down in history with Kelo vs New London as one of the great errors of the Supreme Court. Along with Roe v Wade, of course. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2017-06-24 18:11 |
| #5 Justice Kennedy's final "F*$k You!" to America. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2017-06-24 15:29 |
| #4 Justice Gorsuch did not participate in the decision although it would not have made any difference, it probably would have been 5-4. There are rumors that Kennedy is going to retire soon which would hopefully return SCOTUS to a Constitutional court. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2017-06-24 12:03 |
| #3 Grandfathered property covenants can change. Wherein a property lot size can be honored from past definition, a change in covenant governing lot sizes can be applied should the state of the property be changed, as if in registration for a potential sale. They're lucky the state didn't condemn and seize the unimproved parcel. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2017-06-24 08:37 |
| #2 It's still a taking. The plaintiffs didn't want to change the purpose or use of the land as homestead. They wanted to subdivide it for the same intended use. Did the state demonstrate an overriding rationale why this was forbidden? They just said it was in its power to do so. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2017-06-24 07:54 |
| #1 If you think it's your land, cabin, house or farm, just stop paying taxes on it for a year or so and see whose property it really is. "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." ~ Soetoro |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2017-06-24 06:23 |