Where is the dramamine?

I am certainly in need of some. Try reading the Palm Beach Post's June 29th Eminent domain editorial and you will know why.

High court tears down property-rights barrier

Your home is your castle -- or was until last week, when the Supreme Court gutted the Fifth Amendment limitation on eminent domain seizures.

Formerly, private homes and business could be forced only off blighted land, only with fair compensation and only for clearly demonstrated greater public use. Under the court's new standard, any "public purpose" now will include greater private profit under the guise of economic development.

So far it sounds like the Post is opposed to the USSC decision on Kelo.

The court skated past the generally disproportionate impact on poorer and elderly Americans to rule that local governments, as the opinion read, deserve "broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power." Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the 5-4 majority that creating jobs, not just building needed roads or transforming slums, can be justification for forcing people off their land, which the court should not "second-guess."

But the threat of condemnation will hang over all property, as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated correctly in her dissent, when there is nothing "to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

So far so good.

The ruling obviously disadvantages small property owners against influential private interests that have enough political clout to sell an elected majority on a "public purpose" plan for private gain.

Yup I've said this too

That was evidenced by the case which brought the decision, Kelo vs. City of New London, and which will benefit profit-driven entities. With blight not a factor -- Susette Kelo's is a healthy, working-class neighborhood -- the court sanctioned the eviction of 15 Connecticut residents because private developers could make more money off the land.

Fortunately, the court said its ruling does not preclude state restrictions on eminent-domain takings based on the promise of jobs or tax revenue. Florida's constitution specifically prohibits it, which underscores Riviera Beach's commitment to doing eminent domain on the right way if the city ever gets around to its proposed billion-dollar waterfront redevelopment. With blight clearly the motivating factor, city leaders promised residents and businesses an extensive relocation plan above what the law requires.

Wow Nellie! It's suddenly alright if the city of Riviera Beach does it. This is one of the poorer cities in Palm Beach County. Aren't these the people Liberals protect? By the way what is the definition of blight Palm Beach Post?

Still, on Friday, House Speaker Allan Bense, R-Panama City, created a committee to develop eminent domain guidelines for the state. To head it, he named Rep. Marco Rubio, R-Miami, a vocal supporter of the unsuccessful state subsidy, for which Rep. Bense voted, to build a Florida Marlins baseball stadium that could displace about 100 Miami residents through eminent domain.

I dislike hypocrite politicians as much as anyone but what the heck is the meaning of this paragraph? Does the Post think drawing guidelines is good, bad, or indifferent?

You also know something's wrong when Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent echoes the NAACP. Justice Thomas said urban renewal had been known as "Negro removal" for its displacement of minorities, the elderly and the poor.

Again what the heck is the Post saying besides attacking Justice Thomas? He defends the poor and you attack him. His stance on this case was consistent with his judicial philiosophy. Is the Palm Beach Post's editorial consistent with their political philosophy? I don't know but right now I need some dramamine.

I'll send a link to Randy Schultz. This doesn't sound like his writing. It does sound like Dan Moffet. His columns are both the most shallow and illogical of the Post's editorial writers.

Update- Mr. Schultz had no comment except to say I was wrong about who wrote the editorial. It was not Dan Moffet.

Outside the Beltway Trackback