Here’s some outrage that needs no manufacturing on either side of the political spectrum; not if you’re a property owner.
The government can take your land and give it to another private party says the Supreme Court of the United States.
A city can take a person's home or business for a development project designed to revitalize a depressed local economy, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a decision that could have nationwide impact taking by New London, Connecticut, of 15 properties belonging to nine residents or investment owners for a project to complement a nearby research facility by the Pfizer Inc. drug company.Pfizer is a private company, not covered by eminent domain. So this means that the government can take your house and give it to you neighbor if it sees fit.
This is what those judge-appointee battles in the senate are all about. Life, liberty and property.
UPDATE: Here's what the fifth amendment says:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.(Emphasis mine.)
So I would assume that since the amendment specifies public use, that the five SCOTUS justices assumed that the gov't taking property for private use is okay. Is that the rationale, lawyers?
