Little Pink House Page #8

is telling homeowners

in the city's Fort Trumbull

neighborhood.

The city wants to clear the way

for a new Pfizer

corporate facility

that would include luxury

condos and a hotel.

And officials are using

eminent domain

to take

the Fort Trumbull homes.

The problem is the people

don't want to move.

[MUSIC PLAYS]

[SCOTT]

It was too close.

A four-three margin?

There was clear dissent, okay?

Look, it says it right here.

"The court is going further

than it has ever gone

in the past."

It says this right

in the very first paragraph.

- Oh, my God.

- What? What?

You're actually considering it,

aren't you?

The dissenting opinion makes

the exact points we need.

[SCOTT] It's right there

in the opinion, Dana.

We're taking this appeal

to the U.S. Supreme Court.

- We have to.

- [DANA] They'll never take it.

Chip, you're the boss.

It's your call.

[CHIP] The Connecticut Supreme

Court reversed the good parts

and affirmed the bad ones.

We need to at least

take a shot.

I guess I'd better

clear my schedule off

- for the next year.

- Yes!

- I'll bang out a press release.

- [SCOTT] Okay.

Let's get to work.

But this is something

we should be concerned about.

[JOSH] Jim, they have about

a one in a hundred chance

of having this petition granted

by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Look, Kelo's case

simply doesn't conflict

with any existing decisions from

any other State Trial Court.

So you're telling me

I can sleep at night.

It's a pretty safe bet.

Good.

This city needs to move on.

[JOSH]

I'll be in touch.

Sounds good.

[MUSIC PLAYS]

You've gotta be kidding me.

Bring Harrigan back.

Quick!

- [JOSH] Son of a b*tch.

- Oh, and it gets worse.

Michigan Supreme Court just

prevented the City of Detroit

from bulldozing

a neighborhood in order

to make room for guess who?

- A private corporation.

- Kelo and company's chances

of getting in front

of the Supremes

just went up to 50-50.

I guess so.

[SIGHS]

[PHONE RINGS]

- Hey, Bull.

- [SCOTT] You got a second?

- Yeah. Just.

- Susette,

the U.S. Supreme Court

has agreed to hear your case.

- [SUSETTE] Are you shitting me?

- No, I sh*t you not.

Oh, my God.

[LAUGHS]

Oh, my God.

I don't know what to say.

You think we might...

- We might win this thing?

- That's the plan.

[LAUGHING]

- Oh, Bull.

- [SCOTT] Don't worry. Don't worry.

We're gonna... we're gonna do

the best that we can, okay?

Okay?

We'll talk soon, okay?

Thank you.

[LAUGHS]

[MUSIC PLAYS]

- [APRIL] Hey, Susette. Hi.

- Hi, April.

- How's it going?

- [APRIL] Crazy.

Some guy got wheeled

into the ER by his buddy...

Uh-huh.

...in a wheelbarrow.

- Really?

- [APRIL] Really.

- Amazing.

- [APRIL] Drunk, in his underwear,

covered in blood

in a wheelbarrow.

- Yeah, so, what else is new?

- [APRIL] Yeah, right?

- Yeah.

- [BOTH LAUGHING]

The Supreme Court has agreed

to decide if governments

can seize people's homes

and businesses

for economic

development projects.

Eminent domain is now the focus

of a Supreme Court showdown.

It's become a contentious issue

across the country.

[REPORTER] So this means

if the Supreme Court

does not side

with Susette Kelo,

then no homeowner

of limited means is safe.

[RECEPTIONIST] Mr. Bratten,

I have another reporter

on the line.

Dallas Morning News.

- Take a message.

- [RECEPTIONIST] It's the seventh time

he's called, sir.

[SIGHS]

Fine.

- [BEEPS]

- This is Bratten.

[TONY]

Mr. Bratten, Tony Keller

- with the Dallas Morning News.

- Yes.

I hear you're throwing

an 87-year-old woman

out of her home.

Am I hearing that right?

You really think that...

[SIGHS]

Now, we're obviously gonna need

to address the majority...

- [WOMAN] Scott?

- Yeah.

Sorry to disturb you,

but Jim Bratten is here

to see you.

He's here?

Physically here?

[WOMAN]

Yes.

We'll pick this up later.

Is that okay?

Thank you.

Okay. Send him in,

I guess.

[WOMAN] He's actually

on his way right now.

I've been practicing law

for over 20 years, Mr. Bullock.

I've met a lot of scum

on this planet,

but none as dishonest

- and manipulative as you.

- Excuse me?

[JIM]

This is the most insulting trash

anyone's ever said about me

in my entire career.

You're joking.

"The city's lawyers should hang

their heads in shame

at what they're doing

to their citizens

and to the Constitution

of the United States."

Come on, Scott!

You can continue this sh*t show

for the entire world to see.

I can't do anything about that.

But what you're doing is wrong,

plain and simple.

You're handing

people's homes over

to a private corporation

and I'm the villain?

[JIM] The city is

taking the property.

For Pfizer's benefit.

Okay.

Let's just say you're right,

which you're not.

How is any city

supposed to grow

if you're handcuffing leaders

with vision?

This whole plan

is for the greater good.

- Why can't you see that?

- Some of the worst acts

in history were justified

because they were in pursuit

of a "greater good".

Some of the worst acts

in history?

Wow.

Why don't you try that line

before the Supreme Court?

You flew here for that?

Have a nice flight.

[MUSIC PLAYS]

[GAVEL BANGS]

[MAN] The Honorable Justice

O'Connor presiding.

[O'CONNOR]

We will now hear argument

in the case of Kelo

v. New London.

[SCOTT] Justice O'Connor, and

may it please the Court.

This case is about whether

there are any limits

on eminent domain under

the public-use requirement

of the Fifth Amendment.

Every home, church,

or corner store

would produce

more tax revenue and jobs

if it were a Costco,

a shopping mall,

or a private office building.

If that's the justification

for the use,

then any city can take

property anywhere

within its borders for any use

that might make more money

than what is there now.

[GINSBURG]

Mr. Bullock, you are leaving out

that New London was in

a depressed economic condition.

The critical fact

on the city side

is that they wanted

to build it up,

- get more jobs.

- Every city would like more tax revenue.

GINSBURG But you concede

that on the fact,

more than tax revenue

was at stake.

The city wants

to improve the economy

through tax revenue and jobs.

But that cannot be

a justification

for the use

of eminent domain.

[GINSBURG] Then what

standard do you propose

should draw a line

between when a city

can take private land

and when they cannot?

Municipalities should

never be able to take land

- for private uses.

- [BREYER] But every taking

has some public benefit,

even if it's for private use.

So, given the fact

of the world,

why shouldn't the law

say virtually

every taking is all right,

as long as there

is some public benefit?

Because, Your Honor,

then every property,

every business,

every home can be taken

for any private use.

Only if there is a public use.

And there almost always is.

- Do you agree with that?

- [SCALIA] Do you want us to sit here

and evaluate the prospects

of each condemnation,

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes