Right? Right.

Yesterday`s Supreme Court decision involving property rights isn't as black and white as conservatives and libertarians are making it out to be. Unless, of course, you're talking about the people affected. In that case, it's definitely more black than white.

When I first read the articles detailing the case I was prone to side with those whose homes would be uprooted. Of course, then I read on and realized it's not so clean cut.

While I don't agree a good precedent is being set by allowing government, local, or larger, to remove people from their homes so a private entity can setup shop, it's also not the end of the world. Courts find themselves these days making detailed decisions, not general ones which will in turn affect every case like it (See United Airlines/PBGC case).

Certainly it seems a precedent is being set in this case, but for any other case to be decided along the same lines the details would have to be almost exact, whish is the case Justice Stevens made.

The question in this case is: do governments have the right under the "Fif" Amendment to take land for "public use" even though it's being turned over for private development? I'm going to have to go out on a limb here and say "yes."

The heart of this debate doesn't center on whether the lives of the weak are being pushed aside by the strong. For the conservatives on the bench this case represents a deviation from the Founders supposed intent when writing the Constitution. In their eyes, the Founders would never have supported the taking of private property to be given to another private entity. To them there's no "public" right in that. It's not a practice of eminent domain.

Ahh, but the majortiy see it differently, and it can be summed up simply:

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Justice Stevens said, adding, "Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose."

The New London, CT area in question is not a healthy one. The hotel, office space, and new homes will increase tax revenues for a city of 26,000 that supposedly needs it. The people who are being removed are most likely not getting the best value for their property, which is often the case with eminent domain. I do wish that part was different, and in a case like this they should find a way to make it so.

For the conservatives they have to view this case as "the Founders never intended this" because in almost every other aspect they should be supportive. They believe in big business!

The area isn't going to fix itself up, right? Right. So what if the city decided to build a recreation center, parking deck, and new municipal building on that land. The homeowners would still have to go, right? Right. That's essentially eminent domain. The public is benefitting, supposedly, from these new buildings. Cities take the land of the poor all the time and do this. That's their easy way of cleaning it up, in a sense. Ever been to New Brunswick, NJ? Perth Amboy, NJ? I can go on. Ever see the hospital that is New Brunswick? A city will eventually find a way to clean up a neighborhood that has serious value. Why let it crumble?

Just because this is a private company reeping the profits from the land use, does this mean there's no "public" benefit? Of course not. In fact, the "public" in question probably benefits more from the prospective hotel/office/homes plan than anything else. More tax revenues to the city to help fix schools, right? Right. Hopefully, the tax renveues are large, and the schools can educate their children well enough so they don't end up living in the crummy neighborhood in question! Oh, but that's such a dream...a dream conservatives, like those on this court, don't address in other cases.

The one sore spot in all of this, a precedent if you will, is how big business will then start looking at more bad neighborhoods for developlment (not that they don`t now). You'll have lobbyists pushing local, state, and federal politicians to get them waterfront property in Camden, NJ, or something similar. Of course, the people taking advantage of this ruling will most likely be supporters of the 4 disenters. Man, that's the fucking irony, right? Right.

I'd say the ruling is a good ruling because the town definitely needs the cash infusion, and that's the "public" benefit. However, the likelihood for abuse is certainly there. But afterall, that's America for you. What can you expect?

You have 4 Justices arguing for a strict interpretation of the Constitution and 5 who think the Founders would agree with their decision. We live in modern times, folks. But before we even throw this issue back to the Founders we should really let them sit with Gore v Bush a bit longer.

Conservatives, please get off your fake high horses. You should care more about individuals than you do the interpretation of laws. If you cared more about the people in the first place we wouldn't even have this problem. If you didn't give these big business the green light at every other turn at the expense of the lesser off, again, we wouldn't have problems like these.

They have no problem taking the rights of citizens away, both US and other. They have no problem taking the will of the people away during an election. They have no problem inserting religion in the public domain. They don`t have a lot of problems with a lot of things. Ahh, but this was a chance to be on the side of the little, it may seem, and they`ve got a way to justify it to themselves. So they ran with it.

It's the right decision, although a tough call, which of course will be exploited by those who support the 4 who dissent.