WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, is your new home.

Headlines High court OKs personal property seizures


WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
:confused: WTF? What ever happened to democracy? Our fore-fathers would go to war over some shit like this!
i see the constitution and the bill of rights flying out the window now. my teachers were right; we're turning into something we were against so many years ago. :( :(
What did happen to our democracy? It seems everyday these corporations geht more power and the people lose power. I'm surprised that Rehnquist was against this as well. I think this is a time to look at a quote from Benito Mussolini. "Fascism should more properly called 'corporatism,' since it is the marriage of government and corporate power."
-Benito Mussolini


de·moc·ra·cy Audio pronunciation of "democracy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
Not anymore...


Oppressing your posts...
I say every conneticut resident of the town move out... every single one to the neighboring towns...lets see what kind of money they collect when they dont have a single resident to collect taxes from


Original Dicksman

That's fucking bullshit!!!
This is precisely the kind of deplorable policy I would expect from this current administration.


a.k.a. FuckTheBullShit
Woodreaux said:
That's fucking bullshit!!!
This is precisely the kind of deplorable policy I would expect from this current administration.
You are aware that our beloved Supreme Fucktard weren't involved in this? He hasn't made an appointments to the Supreme Court as of yet.

Fuck, I can't believe you made me sort of defend George.


Seeker of Truth
This Administration is all about Big Business.

Now they can take your house to give to Developers.

Nice job Red Staters!


crap what the frack is this bullshit?
can you imagine getting kicked out of your house because they want to build a shopping mall there?
How fucked in the head is that...


The right is wrong
The people in charge (Supreme Court Judges, CEOs, Politicians etc...) don't care because what are the chances their homes or businesses are going to be taken? Not likely.
This type of crap will continue to happen until there are many more POOR people and less rich with the middle class having been wiped out. When that happens is when we will see the bloody revolution that is America's destiny.
It WILL happen even if it's not for another 50 or 100 years.


Fresh Meat
NEWSFLASH... Russia Did Not Collapse!

They just relocated. Welcome to the great USSA.
Land of the FREE; Home of the BRAVE. (hahaha)! This year we lost our
property rights. A few years ago they rolled tanks on our citizens all the while
yelling through loudspeakers "This is not an attack".
What's Next:
To make it easier to understand and for the collective good they will shorten the bill of rights from 10 (yes, there are 10) to 2. they will be as follows:

Right#1: Sit The Fuck Down!

Right#2: Shut The Fuck Up!
These will be your rights.

Haven't you noticed that whoever is in power, it is the same?

This is what our founding fathers warned us about. That is why they gave us the 2nd amendment.

Now if you will excuse me I must go and prepare for a visit from the BUSHSTAPPO


Resident Conservative
are you telling me that this liberal crowd here at WTF opposes the SC decision supported by both of Clinton's SC additions... and agree with those right wing nut cases, Clarence Thomas, A. Scalia, Rehinquist and S.D. O'Connor.?.?.?... wow... and then gonna blame the current administration... well... ________________________________ <----- Loss of words...


Original Dicksman
Good to see you're still around Dan. I don't care if the judges are nominated by Clinton, Bush or ... siding with industry against the little guy is just reprehensible. I'm not saying President Clinton* was above reproach, but his errors are significantly smaller than Bush's disasters.

* In 2000, Clinton proposed that Congress raise the H-1B visa cap. Surprisingly, the Lamar Smith (a Texas Republican) spoke against it in defense of American tech workers.


I actually don't understand how this got passed. It's obsurd.

The citizens of this country need to figure out how to put these people in check. This is obviously not in our best interest as aren't a lot of laws that have been passed lately.

WTF people?!


Original Dicksman
The explaination I got is: the SU (Supreme Court) has the job of interpreting legality of a bill or judgement based previous judgements/precedence and whether or not it agrees with the Constitution. Because the 5th Amendment has previously been invoked for the purpose of gentrification/seizing property, and because the actions opposed have already been carried out to fruition in the past, a strong precedent exist for it, as fucked up as it is. Because the SC is composed of members from both Parties which seldom agree about what is in the best interest of the people, they use precedent as a stronger test.
Another factor to consider is micromanagement. If they would have overturned the decision, the SC would have somewhat dimissed the power of the local government. High courts do not like getting involved in the affairs of lower courts and legislative bodies (it creates more work for them).