Pandora and the Supremes

I rarely, if ever, agree with my sister or my husband on things political, being the uber conservative that I am, but for once we all agree on something. We all think that this recent 5-4 Supreme Court ruling allowing cities to use eminent domain to seize property for private development stinks.

Thought I'd do some checking on what the polls, unscientific though they are, are saying. Here's a collection:

MSNBC: Was running 98% against the Supreme Court ruling out of 113,001 respondents when I visited.

CNN: Out of 177,974 respondents, 66% said eminent domain should never be used, 33% said it was OK for public use activity only, and 1% thought it was OK to use for private development.

Christian Science Monitor: 97.3% against using eminent domain for private development out of 2036 respondents.

There are virtually no restrictions now on state and local governments' ability to seize private property. Justice O'Conner wrote in her dissenting opinion:

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The founders cannot have intended this perverse result.

Justice Thomas joined the dissent, writing as follows:

The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for 'public necessity,' but instead for 'public use.' Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a 'Public Purpose' Clause, (or perhaps the 'Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society' Clause), a restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as the purpose is 'legitimate' and the means 'not irrational.' This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use'.

I cannot agree. If such 'economic development' takings are for a 'public use,' any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O'Connor powerfully argues in dissent. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court's error runs deeper than this. Today's decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government's eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause's original meaning, and I would reconsider them.

Despite the recent story about an effort to seize Justice Souter's property for the "Lost Liberty Hotel", I suspect that those with power and influence--and properties that bring taxes into the public coffers--will not be the targets. It will be low income families who pay little property tax. And it will be churches, because governments make no tax money from them.

Update: Today, bipartisan bills were introduced in both the House and the Senate to pull federal funding from any project by state or local governments that would force people to sell their property for private development. And Nancy Pelosi said, "Wait! That has the effect of nullifying a Supreme Court decision!" (or words to that effect) So, Nancy, does that mean you wouldn't have supported it if legislation had been introduced to nullify the Supreme Court decision in the 2000 presidential election?