Who Can Really Say?: Two Things

Short night. Two things.

Thing 1. This is about right.

Thing 2. The government can take your property (if they pay for it) just . . . well because they think it would be a good thing if someone else owned it.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader George Zachar says I have the wrong allusion -- it's really the "Andy Warhol court":
This court won't you let you use something you've grown on your land ON your land because somehow that's "interstate commerce".

Now, a govt planner's fancy report is deemed adequate reason to force a property owner to sell out.

Under this court, the law has become what Andy Warhol said art is: What you can get away with.
Ouch.

What he said.

Comments

I'm not a lawyer. And I don't play one on TV. But this bizarre expansion of eminent domain sounds to me like imminent doom for years to come. Has the Supreme Court been smoking leftover medical marijuana from their last strange decision from on high (pun intended)? This strikes me as an invitation to local government corruption and anarchy. Having followed 2 local eminent domain cases that already struck me as government overreaching (seizure of a farm bordering a golf course and takeover of existing business real estate that didn't gel with a local government's vision of a new business district), I am left with dread that the Supreme Court just invited a whole lot more of this nonsense.

Posted by: dan | June 26, 2005 11:07 PM