A sad epilogue:
Susette and I were talking in a small circle of people when we were approached by Justice Richard N. Palmer. Tall and imposing, he is one of the four justices who voted with the 4-3 majority against Susette and her neighbors. Facing me, he said: “Had I known all of what you just told us, I would have voted differently.”
I was speechless. So was Susette. One more vote in her favor by the Connecticut Supreme Court would have changed history. The case probably would not have advanced to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Susette and her neighbors might still be in their homes.
Then Justice Palmer turned to Susette, took her hand and offered a heartfelt apology. Tears trickled down her red cheeks. It was the first time in the 12-year saga that anyone had uttered the words “I’m sorry.”
It was really an appalling decision. It greatly enhanced local governments’ capacity for tyranny.
I am not sure how much of an improvement that is. The Justice in effect states he wasn’t following the law, which was unchanged, but the results. That is, he is a legislator, not a judge, because he makes his decisions based on the outcome, not the law.
Got an army, preferably one with a nuclear deterrent force? If not, then one is ultimately a renter. Deeds, paid-off mortgages — none of that really matters. In the end, despite the niceties of law, might makes right. Property belongs to whatever entity has the will and the power to seize and hold it. In the case of our society, this means the State, or those private entities wealthy enough to buy the legislators needed to obtain State backing.
This is the lesson of Kelo: no one really owns land but the State. Allodial property only exists for sovereigns (see “nuclear deterrent”, above). The State or its clients can destroy the title to any fee simple property it wishes under one pretext or another. Nulle tere sans siegneur — or, as Frank Herbert put it, “He who can destroy a thing has the real control of it”.
I’m sure the judge feels much better about himself now that he’s apologized.
Just words.
2 questions. What is he going to do to rectify his stupid decision? And what steps is he going to take to make sure he doesn’t make the same asinine decisions in the future?
Dumbass!
One of the comments at Reason had the right idea. She should’ve kicked him in the balls and apologized 12 years later.
Any use of eminent domain is tyranny. If someone barely has the capacity to own something and the entire world knows there is a better use… it’s still tyranny.
If property ownership is not complete (this include one’s own body) liberty and freedom are an illusion, or more usually a lie. Without that understanding and protection, B Lewis is correct. It turns out my understanding is a minority (haven’t heard anyone that agrees and even if they do in principle they can always come up with a case where they aren’t so sure) and we see by these cases there simply is no protection but anonymity… which is only a protection until it isn’t.
Sadly our founders got this one wrong.
I was the guy who organized the plan to go after supreme court justices homes in New Hampshire, who had voted in favor of the SCOTUS decision (Souter and Breyer), with eminent domain plans, reasoning that holding them to their own standards was just desserts. Unfortunately we didnt see people in other states where other SCOTUS justices have their homes do likewise, but it did serve the purpose of motivating our state legislature to pass a constitutional amendment written by myself to restrict eminent domain in NH, which then was approved by the voters by 75% in the next election. This Connecticut justice should suffer the same fate, along with his colleagues who voted likewise.
@ken anthony: “Liberty and freedom are an illusion” is precisely correct. These ideas, as we have come to understand them, are pure Lockean fiction. Man is a hierarchical, social creature, not an atomized, autonomous self-creator. The attempt to organize society on the basis of liberty, equality has been and is a failure, for it fails to acknowledge this fact.
No one wants to hear this, but the root ideas upon which our nation and the Western world have been based since the Middle Ages are fallacious. Duty, fidelity and subsidiarity — not “liberty and freedom” — are the only bases upon which a enduring human society can be founded. These things are real.
But I’m not here to sell anyone. Reality will teach us, as it always has. The Gods of the Copybook Headings are about to limp up and explain it again…
Poul Anderson had an interesting post-apocalyptic story where the US had reverted to a feudal society. One of the characters puts forward the notion that perhaps people are better suited to a feudal society.
Man is a hierarchical, social creature, not an atomized, autonomous self-creator. The attempt to organize society on the basis of liberty, equality has been and is a failure, for it fails to acknowledge this fact.
That’s a lot to consider. It seems to me you’re saying exceptionalism is not possible. I’m just not ready to agree. It does required education and acceptance which we’ve failed at miserably. To say that property should be inviolate and total is not something we’ve ever tried. Not only do you have to convince those that are inclined to accept it, you’ve got to discredit the redistributionists.
OTOH, you’ve got people creating fictional intellectual property. The stated purpose for it is a complete lie. It’s really the other side of the coin.
@ken anthony: It is a lot to consider… and kudos to you for considering it. Your willingness to do so is evidence of an honest, open mind.
And of course I don’t expect you to agree. Few people would. I’m not here to win converts. Just putting in my two cents. Thanks for picking them up and examining them.
Thank you for your kind words B Lewis. I think there is a fine line between open minded and soft headed dolt. I hope I am the former. I love truth. I hate lies. Always have and always will. People lie to themselves because of self interest. I have a great difficulty with that.