Eminent Domain is the idea that the state can take a piece of land or house, etc, at a fair price, so they can build a road or something for the public good. Not too long ago the Supreme Court, wrongly in my opinion, expanded this to say the government could take the land from one private organization to another for development purposes (Kelo v City of New London, FindLaw.com, WikiPedia.com).
What does this have to do with Sotomayor?
She was also on the panel that decided the 2006 case of Didden v. The Village of Port Chester by unpublished summary order.
The important part of that sentence is ‘unpublished summary order’, which I’ll come back to in a bit. The case was this
The case involved what can fairly be described as an extortionate use of the state’s power of eminent domain. Bart Didden wanted to build a CVS pharmacy on land he owned. A politically powerful developer wanted to build a Walgreens on the same spot, so he “asked” for $800,000 cash or a 50 percent stake – or else he’d have the town seize Mr. Didden’s property. Didden refused and Port Chester took his land the very next day.
Instead of exploring the obvious differences between that case and the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Kelo v. City of New London, Sotomayor and her colleagues issued an unpublished decision, devoting but a single paragraph to conclude that there was “no basis upon which relief can be granted.” Moreover, the panel made a wholly inappropriate factual finding that the $800,000 cash “offer” was not extortion but merely “voluntary attempts” to resolve the case. Didden – and property owners everywhere – deserved a better airing of his constitutional challenge.
(Both of the previous quotes from CsMonitor.com)
Basically a town takes a guy’s land, gives it to another guy and this Judge does not even actually listen to the case (that’s the ‘unpublished summary order’ bit). She basically says ‘nope, not going to listen to this case, I don’t have to, I’m a judge and oh, here’s a case Kelo v City of New London that sort of supports me’. Even a cursory glance at the facts of the case reveals that the case was not really about eminent domain but rather about extortion (and probably some dirty politicians).
Really, this is the person we want on the bench?
