Conservative U.S. justices draw criticism by overruling precedent again

[DonViejo]

Source: Reuters


JUNE 21, 2019 / 12:39 PM / UPDATED AN HOUR AGO

Andrew Chung
4 MIN READ

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - For the second time in six weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Friday overruled a decades-old legal precedent set by the court, this time involving property rights, raising alarm bells among its liberal members.

In a 5-4 decision powered by the conservative justices with the liberals in dissent, the court shored up the rights of private property holders in governmental disputes, ruling in favor of a Pennsylvania woman fighting a town ordinance aimed at keeping cemeteries on private land open to the public.

The ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, overruled a 1985 Supreme Court decision that had forced property owners facing a government-led takeover of land for public purposes to seek compensation under state law before bringing a claim in federal court.

The ruling comes amid rising concern among abortion rights advocates and Democratic politicians over whether the court may overrule Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. Republican President Donald Trump pledged during the 2016 election campaign to appoint judges hostile to Roe, and has since named two conservative jurists to the bench, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-precedent/conservative-u-s-justices-draw-criticism-by-overruling-precedent-again-idUSKCN1TM27G

[Jake Stern]

1. Williamson was a bad decision that needed overturning

It essentially blocked property owners from challenging government takings in Federal court.

Supporting the Cons on this one.



[link:https://archive.triblive.com/state/pennsylvania/13387578-74/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-pennsylvania-property-rights-case|

“Williamson County creates an egregious Catch-22 trap for property owners: before they can bring a claim in federal court, they must first go through state courts and administrative agencies,” he writes in a blog about the high court agreeing to hear the Pennsylvania case. “But the very act of going to state court makes it virtually impossible to later appeal the case to a federal court! This is the kind of Kafkaesque idiocy that gives the legal profession a bad name.”

[oldsoftie]

8. I agree. This was bullshit from the start. I wonder if they'll revisit the eminent domain ruling?

Where cities were allowed to take property in order for PRIVATE development to be done. Another terrible ruling

[Jake Stern]

9. I would hope they eventual overturn Kelo

I was shocked to see the court's liberal justices on the city's side in that case.

[oldsoftie]

10. Me too!

[Rebl2]

12. I'm very

surprised too.

[RAB910]

2. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution to justify this ruling

[Jake Stern]

5. So you're cool with denying property owners a chance to contest the government taking their land

in federal court?

[sarisataka]

6. 5th Amendment nt

[Quackers]

13. Correct. nt

[katusha]

3. overturning precedent huh?

well if we get the presidency and the senate in 2020 there is no reason why we shouldnt overturn the precedent of 9 justices. correct me if I'm wrong but they did away with the filibuster for judges so we can nominate and confirm 2 or more justices at our leisure.

[UpInArms]

4. Why don't they overturn the Bush v Gore ruling

And give me my country back?

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

7. Remember how the conservative justices said Roe v. Wade was "settled law"?

Those are code words for, "We'll change it as soon as we get the right case."

Plessy v. Ferguson (the "separate but equal" decision that permitted racially segregated schools) was settled law until the SCOTUS overturned it with Brown v. Board of Education.

[TomSlick]

11. It was a long slog but I read the decision this afternoon.

The opinion is alarming on a couple of levels.

First, at bottom the case is about stopping governmental regulation. There was no "taking" of property as most people would understand the term. The township did not "take" the property. Rather the township had a regulation that cemeteries be open to the public during the day to allow inspection for code violations. The Court simply assumed that such inspection was a "taking."

The decision stands for the proposition that any government regulation that effects a property interest (or allegedly so) is now a Sec. 1983 civil rights violations. Governments will simply be unable to have any such regulations - think zoning, pollution, etc.

Second, the opinion makes it clear that stare decisis - especially in matters of constitutional law - is a thing of the past. Roe, Griswold, Obergefell, etc. are on the chopping block.