The constitution hasn't been violated. Unless the critics get the Court to hear the case, there is no violation of the constitition.  In fact, current case says the opposite.

Helping the city's current housing crisis is enough of a public good to justify Atlantic Yards taking of a few property holders' land.

DDDB would never negotiate with Ratner.  It wanted total victory.  It won't get it and then the ramifications will begin.  It will be fun to watch.   

This is another example of the cyclic nature of politics in America, the brilliance of the Constitution, and the necessity of defending it.

When either end of the political spectrum decides its time to change the Constitution, or just suspend it for a few, or do any other fiddling, it's a dangerous road for the country and has to be opposed. New York State has the worst record of eminent domain abuse in the country; they were the first state to state that Article 5 extended to "Public Good" instead of "Public Use." That closed the door on regrettable seizures of private land in order to build hospitals, schools, and roads and opened it to the building of malls and newspaper goliath towers. Not exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

To tell someone whose property is being stolen and is brave enough to resist and lead a fight against a multi-billion dollar boondoggle not to use a resource because you want to pin a label on them is incredibly narrow and suicidal. You say you don't support the Ratner project, but you would stop fighting because of a label on an ally? Very Amerikan of you! You are the target audience for those theives' tactics.

Go, Dan Goldstein!

There are those who would burn down every law or tree which grows in Brooklyn to catch the devil, and it is clear that DDDB is among them.

The current Supreme Court is such a frightening institution that recently, when arguing a gun control case, even the Bush administration was concerned they'd go whole hog and eliminate even the most minimial federal efforts to regulate firearms. Surely, Bush's Soliciter General understands better than most the ideological extremism that has now packed the Court.

The entire efforts of the judical right is focussed upon brining us back to a pre-Progressive era state of nature. This is especially pronounced in the economic sphere. The use by the far right of cases in areas such as eminent domain, which the constitution regulates only to the extent of ensuring fair compensation, is a goal-directed effort to eliminate every bit of government power as an unconstitutional "taking".

Remember, every bit of environmental legislation is a government intrusion which stops property owners from the highest and best use of what is theirs, without compensation, often to the point of rendering such property without value. Cases such as "Goldstein" are merely the thin end of the wedge. The goal is to bring us back to what is known by the far right as "the constitution in exile", meaning the pre-New Deal era. If you don't believe me, read their literature. They are on DDDB's side for a reason, and the only hope is that the Court, if it takes DDDB's side, rules narrowly. Given the composition of the Court, that is like gambling the rent money on Lotto.

The fact that polls reflect that public opinion is in opposition to eminent domain is relevant to absolutely nothing. Polls also record that the public favors school prayer. What in the blue blazes do polls have to do with the constitution?  

Now, be a good boy and go bother your legislator.      

If, as you claim, you oppose the Ratner plan (as any thinking and--dare I say it--patriotic person does) and your problem is the source of the Amicus, why don't you take the obvious route and file an amicus yourself? Surely you could be just as persuasive as those conservatives stealing a march on the Constitution! Or would that be too much like standing up for your principles? Or just too much like work?

Michael Ratner is the lion of the left with his Center for Constitutional Studies. His wife runs a little broadcast called "Democracy Now." But both of them are major investors in this scheme to kick people out of their homes and defraud the taxpayers of the State of New York for the benefit of the family business. They further the shredding of the Constitution via dirty lobbying by allowing hundreds of thousands of dollars to be directed IN THEIR NAMES from Forest City HQ to politicians who approve these and similar abuses, in the name of real estate. The two of them refuse to discuss the family business that supports their "good works." But the destructive ends aren't justified by the self serving means of  these heads of Constitutional Loophole Studies and Democracy Now-And-Then.

That sort of hypocrisy and the mindless support of self-congratulatory "good people" who would rather avoid action and thought than question what's going on (yes, I mean you)  don't leave a lot of alternatives for those actually fighting for Constitutional justice.

So prove me wrong and file an amicus. 

If you read this article, you would understand why I will not be filing an amicus; it is because you have no constitutional claim whatsoever.

Not every piece of bad public policy violates the constitution. Atlantic Yards is bad public policy, but the use of eminent domain on its behalf is perfectly permissable.

I also favor the legalization of medical marijuana; in fact, I favor the legalization of marijuana, period. That being said, Justice Stevens was right, and Justice Thomas was wrong, and any other results would have ended with the eventual overturning of the Social Security Act. At least, that was the goal.

So pardon me if I think that avoiding bad precedent is more important than saving Mr. Goldstein's condo.  

Parse it however you like, but it's just your opinion that there's no constitutional basis for the case. Clearly those filthy right-winger LAWYERS at IFJ disagree with your contention that it is Constitutional to seize property in a backroom deal so a billionaire can make another billion. Which is where the Supreme Court steps in. Let's see if they'll hear the case or not.

But I really admire the strength of your convictions: you only back winning horses, do you? Some spine y'got y'self there, cowboy!

This guy seems to have very strong convictions and principles. He feels that constituional precedents which protect us all are more important than how some local issue is resolved. He seems to feel that victory in such battles is less important than protecting the greater good. He seems to believe that helping ideological extremists destroy our envirnment is too high a price to pay to stop one development project in one city.

But DDDB feels that anyone whose higher principles conflict with their self interest is criminal scum.

Which is why I will dance in the streets when they knock down Dan Goldstein's condo, even though I will never again be able to park.  

Why have a lawyers at all, when we can just put constitutionality to a plebesite.

Hoep you're not Muslim, cause after the vote they're closing down your mosque and you're being deported.

Fuckhead 

The previous poster you refer to said: "The public is against eminent domain as public policy; they are not expressing an opinion as to its consitutionality,and if they were, that opinion is surely of little value."

So, he said, if they were expressing an opinion about constitutionality, then they werte incorrect in their opinion. Seems to me you aare the one engaged in willful distortion, bucko.   

...that the public was expressing an opinion on the result, not its legal basis.

Ask the public about the fifth amendment, and they'll exert their right to remain silent.

james bovard, pat buchanan  antiwar.com and other 'far right' conservatives take issue with the constintionality of torture, suspension of habeous corpus, and undeclared war. I guess that makes opposition to the Iraq war suspect. 

 Seems you're spending more time labeling the ISJ - far right, right wing blah blah, than the issue at hand - and the big issue is emenent domain's scope has become so wide that a developer can literally put a tennis court atop luxury condos and claim it was a public benefit. Kelo literally paves the way to take people's homes and give them to private developers - the 'public benefit' is more tax revenue or jobs. If opposing that makes me 'rigth wing' or whatever else you want to label me, I don't give a damn. This is about principle not who can look the most politically correct. 

Oh and for 'scary' how about Ruth Bader Ginsberg - and I am not talking about her looks -she said she will look to international law and precidents  for guidance and justification in making decisions - in other words she has declared herself above the constitution and the US law.

Mr. Loophole is correct about the agenda of the Orwellianly entitled "Institute for Justice". The goal of the IFC is the eventual finding that all zoning, landmark's regulation and environmental legislation and regulations are "takings" within the meaning of eminent domain, and thus cannot be enforced unless the government is willing to compensate property owners for the economic costs those regulations entail for them. This would be the end of such regulations as we know them, and society would suffer greatly, with many of DDDB's supporters among the loudest complainers, and for good reason.  While one cannot control who files an amicus in one's favor, DDDB should at least have the decency not to brag about being in such wretched company.

Loophole  is also right about DDDB's naivette in belieivng that some public policy is per se unconstitutional because they, or  even a majority of the public, do not like it, or dislike  it in a particular application. My guess is that most Brooklynites oppose eminent domain, even when it is clearly used for a public purpose, but favor its application in the matter of Atlantic Yards. But, of course DDDB only favors putting the constitution to a plebiscite if they can chose the voter base.

Where Mr. Lopphole is wrong is in this case. While I agree with him that DDDB's filing an amicus in the Kelo case was ill-advised, the results in Kelo ensure that the disaster Mr. Loophole forsees here will not come to pass.

The four justices who joined the Kelo decision are all still on the Court. Two of the four justices in the minority have been replaced, and while their replacements are likely to feel the same as those they replaced, it will have no impact on the vote.

Also remaining the same is the Justice who will decide this case, Anthony Kennedy. Mr. Justice Kennedy concurred with the Kelo majority, but wrote a far narrower opionion, which left open the possibilty that a case would come along where he would find that the public purpose required to justify a "taking" under eminent domain was not met, as it had been in Kelo.

In the extremely unlikely event that Mr. Jusitce Kennedy does not find that the Atlantic Yards pork buffet meets the Kelo standard, he will dountless write an extremely narrow opinion keyed to the particular facts of the case. Thus, the disaster forseen by Mr. Loophole will have to wait until the day the vultures at IFJ get to see another rightwinger put on the bench in the place of Justice Stevens or Ginsburg. But whatever the finding in Goldstein, Mr. Loophole should not lose any sleep.

Yet.