I did not tie his rights to his political views.

What you think of the criteria for eminent domain doesn't matter in the face of a government that has already established in its own precedents the power it has assumed.

If it was really about reducing pollution (and if the article in this link is accurate) then there should be little concern about auto emissions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetec...
But it isn't about pollution, it's about power and control over people.

The fact is that eminent domain for pipelines is not based on the Kelo decision. Neither is the Federal law granting eminent domain to national pipeline companies. It preceded the Kelo decision and is based on prior precedents also exploiting an inconsistent power of eminent domain in the Constitution, which transcends variations on rationalizations for different uses of eminent domain.

The company acquires land for it's business. The laws let it use eminent domain because of the kind of business it is. Eminent domain for pipelines, power transmission lines and other such intrastructure has been authorized for a very long time.

I am not "hung up" on viros and this is not about frivolous cartoons on "UFO aliens". Their ideology is central to this story and to the rest of national and state politics attacking human civilization. Botsford wants it that way. Joining the viro trashing of energy production does not justify Botsford's political antics pretending to be the "martyred idealist". You originally wrote that his "environmental agenda... is ok in my view." It isn't ok and it isn't a frivolously irrelevant side-show.

I would abolish it altogether.

Actually it does exist in the Constitution. Unfortunately. But the 5th Amendment clearly recognizes this power by specifying that it must be done with "just compensation."

Eminent domain was one of those things Judge Narrangassett would have undoubtedly fixed in his rewrite. It's as immoral as slavery and should not be in the constitution.

Every successful business serves the "public good". The criteria for eminent domain was supposed to be "public use". Both are collectivist premises for property taking.

As a matter of principle, everyone's property rights should be protected. But when someone like this tries to exploit appeals to property rights for an agenda that is opposed to property rights on principle, with all the other problems we have you aren't going to expend a lot of effort on his behalf -- unless there is some way to set a better precedent despite his antics, but that is most likely not this case.

It wasn't intended as a serious legal case. It was used to publicly mock Breyer and the Court.

It is very difficult to take a case to the Supreme Court. It costs over $1 million and fewer than 1% of cases are accepted to be heard. Non-profit public interest law firms like Pacific Legal Foundation and Institute for Justice who have the financial backing to try to set precedents are the kind of organizations you need behind you in addition to local attorneys.

There are some "victories", but for the most part the courts are part of the same government driven by the same ideology. The idea that injustices are stopped by "going to court" is a myth.

For those who would like to refresh their memories on Kelo, here is an article about the book, "A Little Pink House" and the documentary about Suzanne Kelo. http://www.cato.org/events/little-pin...

You said you were "amazed at how little anyone cared" about the Kelo decision. A lot of people cared and still do. It has been national news, with a lot of legal and legislative activity fighting it. It hasn't been blocked anywhere near what is needed in state and national legislation, but that isn't because people don't care. It is one of the few property rights issues that people on a national scale do care about and are horrified by.

I could not agree with you more Zenphamy but its not how our government views it.

There are cases from the western Washington case where the government wanted property to build data centers and the farmer that owned would not sell. They changed the zoning codes so that it could only be wilderness land and then after a couple of years force the sale at the wilderness land prices (about 100 an ache verses the 10,000 or so it was worth before.) which hit the supreme court and the supreme court (state not federal) ruled that the state had paid for the land and thereby meet the requirements for imminent domain. Another case hit the supreme court in which the government won imminent domain and the farmer in this case stopped appeals as there was little hope of getting it overturned. He had something in the thousands of aches, thought I cant recall the exact amount.

Property taxes, and the ability to confiscate your land if you do not pay makes the land belong to a state and you paying a lease on land you have all ready purchased.

There are so many ways in which we no longer have property rights its frighting and it is left up to the person to prove that the value assessed by government to your property for them to buy it is less than it should be for fair market value most of the time.

Yes, you shouldn't be right, even though you are, because the eminent domain case law is built on a fundamentally very flawed premise. In fact, the case law basis is as flawed as that established by the Dred Scott decision where a free man could not become a citizen, and therefore could not sue in court.

The reason why eminent domain was used for pipelines is that many people get natural gas plumbed directly into their own homes ... by a public utility. This is a case where a law that was reasonable has been bastardized by overreaching statists and cronyists.

Let's use an analogy.
You own a gasoline service station. The local government takes a few feet off of your property to expand the road an extra couple of lanes. It's an inconvenience, but not a fundamental overreach because you knew when you bought the property that the first six feet of your property might be subject to that.

Now an oil company wants to run a pipeline through or under your property. First of all, the time where your service station is inconvenienced is likely more (but perhaps not given the inefficiency with regard to road construction), but moreover the oil company is a private entity. You should have the right not to sell your property. This really should be fundamentally be compared to Kelo, but it won't be because Sandpiper has obtained eminent domain privileges (not rights) in the past for its natural gas pipelines. Sandpiper should not have gotten eminent domain privileges in North Dakota in the past because its pipelines are not being piped into individuals' homes. Now they are extending upon a previous incorrect court decision toward a further injustice.

This isn't about "purchased courts". The Constitution inconsistently granted authority for eminent domain for public use. The meaning of public use has been expanded ever since by the courts because of ideology. Viro ideology in particular is today the main attack on private property rights. You can't blame this on "purchasing" while insisting the Constitution does not allow what it has consistently and progressively been interpreted by the courts to mean, based on an original inconsistency giving them a foothold.

I "shouldn't be right" even though I am? Eminent domain has been used for decades for pipelines. It didn't start with the Kelo decision and did not become legally justified because of it. You wrote: "This points out just how horrible a decision Keloe vs. New London was." It is not about the Kelo decision.

I would hesitate to abolish it, but I would add to it a simple clause: that only the government entity claiming eminent domain may use the land! That way if they want to claim eminent domain, it is up to that [insert alphabet soup bureaucracy name] to take the private landowner to court and they are forbidden to sell it to any other or property ownership reverts back to the original owners with no expiration.

Correct. Though I must side with the rights of the owner regardless their environmentalist idealism, the Kelo vs. New London decision will be used to take their property away from them.

Want to know what is especially disturbing about the Kelo case? The land was taken, but still sits there undeveloped. All that has been done is to rip out the houses that were there.

Pretty sure it was New London vs "a woman" (name escapes me). New London claimed imminent domain for the public benefit. Supreme Court agreed!

The hilarious thing is, Wausau, Wisconsin (where they live) is hardly the mecca of renewable energy... definitely not shit for solar, and I can't imagine there is much wind potential either, and being a northern state, I don't think a Prius or Tesla would be very practical either... but they look like a couple of hippy teachers driving old Subarus.

Nonetheless, they make a few facts in error. A company like Enbridge builds a pipeline, which is really a transportation system like a railway, and charges other oil producers a few to move their oil through it. Much like a railway charges to move it.

The impact of using rail to move all the oil out of North Dakota (we're talking Saudi Arabia levels of oil reserves... not a few barrels... it's many billions of barrels). The extensive use of rail for example has eliminated all rolling stock & engines from availability to ship iron ore from the Minnesota iron range to Duluth for shipment to the Eastern US & overseas. The problem is so exacerbated, that there is no more room to stockpile it on the Iron Range, and without the money from sale, the mines are now shutting down, putting entire communities out of work (yet again). Its not a lack of demand or market, it's a lack of resources to ship it. Railways are generally regional, and the oil pays better than rock ore, so they are completely ignoring the market.

We're also moving huge quantities of petroleum through urban areas...the railways were designed to move product to people, not product 'around' the people. So a few thousand gallons in a leak here & there is pretty inconsequential compared to some of the cases where there was a train vs. truck accident or something and burned a city to the ground.

Hence, their argument is likely false - this isn't about 'moving one company's product to market' - it's about moving the entire productivity of a region to market. And one that is very critical to national security.

I'll bet if the Sierra Club, Soros, and whoever else wasn't paying their legal fees, this would be done & gone. They don't even live there, it's 'farmland he inherited' - so, not being worked either I'd guess - at best, he is leasing it to someone else to farm.

So here's what I love about liberals... I live in a highly Republican community, about 75% red-voting... (I've looked at the numbers actually), over 90% own firearms, many have horses, etc. We're regularly demonized in the Sacramento area as "that place"... we don't conform. However, close to 50% have solar panels on their houses, we are a net-positive energy producer to the grid for the rest of the region, I see a hell of a lot of Volts, Teslas, and BMW EV's driving around (far more than others), and if you go to ... oh... someplace like Davis or Berkeley, it is completely the opposite. They never seem to practice what they preach, they want a gold star for hugging a tree in the buff on camera, but as with the political class - will always take a private jet while bitching about polluting tailpipes.

This is what is wrong with these people... "Do as I say, not as I do".

I don't know the circumstances... although, you can't put a lot of turns in a pipeline, the more curves it has, the lower the pressure would need to be and more inherently prone to leaks.

These people have the right to refuse to sell THEIR property if the do not want to regardless of the reason to a private company!!!!!!!!!!!!!! of course they can say the cost is 4 million dollars and its yours.

Yes indeed. I grew up there, lived in Baton Rouge.

Let's not forget Edwin Edwards either.