XPost: misc.legal, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics
XPost: alt.politics.economics
A number of sane people around the commentariat have been up in
arms over the recent decision handed down by the Supreme Court
in Murr v. Wisconsin. And with very, very good reason. We’ve
dealt with this case here before as it’s played out through the
lower courts, but as a refresher it deals with the situation
encountered by Donna Murr and her siblings in Wisconsin. The
family owned two small parcels of land along the St. Croix
River. They had a cabin on one of the lots and the adjoining
property was left vacant as an investment. But when they
attempted to finally sell the vacant lot in 2004 they learned
that the state had changed the rules on them, making it
impossible to sell the land to anyone other than the county
unless they combined the properties and relinquished the entire
package.
SEE ALSO: Remember that California single payer plan? Yeah…
never mind.
The property in question had been valued at $400K. The county –
the only entity legally entitled to buy it – offered them $40K.
Because the state, through changes in laws which did not apply
when the family acquired the land, had completely gutted its
worth, the Murr family sued to be properly compensated under the
Takings Clause. With this week’s decision, those hopes are
dashed. Eric Boehm at Reason explains what this is doing to the
rights of property owners.
When governments issue regulations that undermine the value of
property, bureaucrats don’t necessarily have to compensate
property holders, the Supreme Court ruled Friday…
The ruling could have implications that go well beyond the 2.5
acres of land in Wisconsin.
Several western states filed amicus briefs in the case on behalf
of the Murr family (as did the Reason Foundation, which
publishes this blog). Though states like Nevada and Arizona did
not have a direct interest in the Murrs’ ability to sell their
vacant land, they saw the case as having important implications
for conflicts over federal lands.
Many state governments own contiguous lots and large bodies of
water near areas owned by the federal government (military
bases, national parks, etc). If those government bodies are
allowed to merge contiguous lots for regulatory purposes, the
federal government could impose severe restrictions on state
land and wouldn’t have to pay consequences, warned Ilya Somin, a
professor of law at George Mason University who authored the
amicus brief on behalf of those western states.
What we are seeing here is a continuation of what I still
maintain is possible the worst ruling from the Supreme Court in
the history of the nation, Kelo v. City of New London. That was
the dark day when the Supremes ruled that the idea of “public
use” in the Takings Clause could be reinterpreted into a Reverse
Robin Hood scenario by defining it as the far more ambiguous
“public benefit.” When that case was decided in 2005 the
principal dissent was written by O’Connor, but in a separate
dissent, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the following:
Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s
interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe
from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.
This ruling is yet another weakening of the Takings Clause. And
the reason I say this is a continuation of Kelo is that you need
only look at who is voting on these rulings. In Kelo, the 5-4
decision was delivered by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer
with the tie-breaking vote cast by Kennedy. Now, In Murr, the 5-
3 decision came from Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan, (who replaced
Stevens under Obama) and Sotomayor (who replaced Souter under
Obama) with both the tie-breaking decision and the written
opinion coming once again from Kennedy. Anyone seeing a pattern
here?
It was 5-3 because Gorsuch wasn’t involved with the original
hearing and didn’t vote. But even if he had, the Fifth Amendment
still would have lost 5-4 yet again. It’s not enough just to
keep hold of the seat that Justice Scalia occupied.
Kennedy is unreliable in too many instances when given a choice
between more power for the government over the individual or
less. The other four liberals are lost causes, apparently never
having seen a case of bigger government which they couldn’t
celebrate. We need a real majority on the Supreme Court with
conservative, small government principles in their hearts or
these erosions of fundamental rights will continue.
TAGS:FIFTH AMENDMENTKELOREASONSCOTUSTAKINGS CLAUSEWISCONSIN
SHARE ON FACEBOOK SHARE ON TWITTER
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/24/murr-v-wisconsin-scotus- deals-another-blow-fifth-amendment/
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)