Little Pink House Page #9

one by one?

[SCOTT]

No, Your Honor.

Your Honors, I would like

to save my remaining time

for after Mr. Harrigan's

arguments.

Very well.

Mr. Harrigan.

[JOSH]

Your Honors.

There is no principled basis

for a Court

to make a value judgment

about a plan

to revive an economically

depressed city.

And where do you draw the line,

Mr. Harrigan?

I wouldn't draw one.

[O'CONNOR] Say you had a

Motel 6 and the city says,

"Well, if we had a Ritz-Carlton,

we would have higher taxes."

- Now, is that okay?

- Yes, Your Honor.

That would be okay.

[SCALIA] So, you can

take from A to give to B

if B pays more taxes?

If it is a significant

amount, yes.

[JUDGE] Mr. Bullock, you

have time remaining.

Would you like to use it

for a rebuttal?

[SCOTT]

Thank you, your Honor.

Can you take a Motel 6

and give it to a fancier hotel?

Their answer is yes.

The one thing that all

poor neighborhoods share

is that they don't produce

much tax revenue.

If the Court affirms

the lower court's decision,

then you would put

poor neighborhoods

and working-class neighborhoods

like Fort Trumbull

in jeopardy.

[MUSIC PLAYS]

[BALLOON INFLATING]

[CHEERING]

Congratulations, Jim.

We won.

Five to four.

[BOTH LAUGHING]

The U.S. Supreme Court today

made it a whole lot easier

for someone to come in

and take your house,

take your private property

against your will.

[ANCHOR]

The U.S. Supreme Court today

affirmed the power

of local governments

to seize private property.

The government's right

to seize your home

just received

a broad stamp of approval

from the Supreme Court

of the United States.

Man, it just seems

outrageous to me

that you can take

private property

from someone

and not build a highway

or something that's really

just for the public

but actually transfer

that property

to another private owner.

This decision

could be felt and soon

in every city and town

in this country.

And it seems to me sort

of a reverse Robin Hood

where they're taking

from the poor, essentially,

and giving to the rich.

They can say, "You know what?

We see a better public use

in your land for a Walmart.

In fact, maybe

a parking lot is best."

[REPORTER] New London homeowners

who spent five years fighting

to keep their own houses

now have 90 days to move out.

[MUSIC PLAYS]

- [JOHN] Susette?

- [CROWD] Save our homes!

- [JOHN] They're ready for you.

- [CROWD] Hands off our homes!

[CHANTING CONTINUES]

Hands off our homes!

Hands off our homes!

[CHEERING]

Thank you.

I'm...

I see so many faces I know.

[CHEERING]

Thank you all

for fighting so hard.

[CHEERING]

This isn't about us

keeping our homes anymore.

It's about people's

property rights

all over the United States.

[CHEERING]

There is no amount of money

that could replace our homes.

[CHEERING]

Or our memories.

- And we will fight.

- [MAN] Right!

[CHEERING]

[SUSETTE]

I know that.

Because we won't quit now.

[CHEERING]

This decision was so close.

We finally shed some light

on what happened here.

This is where we chose to settle

and this is where

we want to stay.

[CHEERING]

This is America,

the home of the free,

isn't it?

[CROWD CHEERING]

[MUSIC PLAYS]

Hands off our homes!

Hands off our homes!

[CHARLOTTE]

The two most important things,

social justice

and economic development,

they go hand in hand.

Now, what kind of world

do we want to live in?

[DOOR BUZZES]

But that cannot be

a justification

for the use of eminent domain.

[MUSIC PLAYS]

[ANCHOR] Ms. Kelo

came to Washington,

and was in no mood

to compromise.

This battle against

eminent domain abuse

may have started as a way for me

to save my little pink cottage,

but has rightfully grown

into something much larger.

[MUSIC PLAYS]

[MUSIC PLAYS]

[MUSIC PLAYS]

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes