Palin Forgets She Once Used Eminent Domain

By
Monday, October 06, 2008 at 3:20 pm

ANCHORAGE — Fox News’ Carl Cameron gave Gov. Sarah Palin a chance to redeem herself after one of her more embarrassing moments during an interview with CBS’ Katie Couric. In a clip from the Couric interview that aired last week, Palin couldn’t muster even one example of a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with, besides Roe v. Wade.

A few days later on Fox, Palin rattled off a number of decisions she supposedly opposed. One of the rulings that Palin named is an eminent domain case, Kelo v. City of New London. In Kelo, the court ruled that local governments have the right to seize private property for the sake of economic development.

At first blush, it seems like a good pick for an Alaskan with a libertarian streak.

The only problem is that in 2002, Palin sued a local landowner in Wasilla to seize his property, the proposed site of a new sports complex that included an indoor ice hockey rink.

That eminent domain case has wound through the courts for six years, at a cost of about $1.75 million. As of this July, the matter was still being worked out.

The case didn’t come up in the Fox interview, when Palin said: “The Kelo case dealt with eminent domain. That affects me as a governor and it affected me as a mayor also. Private property rights are so precious in this nation, and for the Supreme Court to have sided with government instead of the people, the property owners on that–that was frustrating.”

Comments

19 Comments

AS
Comment posted October 6, 2008 @ 12:38 pm

Just shows what an idiot she really is.


Jeffrey Seelman
Comment posted October 6, 2008 @ 12:49 pm

Gov. Palin is on a drive of self-ambition, which should not be confused with the Republican agenda.


EJ
Comment posted October 6, 2008 @ 1:07 pm

thank you for pointing this out! I asked Politico about the same thing… after posts were all over her reading the Economist. This is way more of a whopper than that.


Laura McGann
Comment posted October 6, 2008 @ 1:11 pm

no prob.


jeni
Comment posted October 6, 2008 @ 1:23 pm

She is very skilled in the art of out and out lying as well as shooting wolves out of an aircraft!


whynot
Comment posted October 6, 2008 @ 1:42 pm

Palin has the nerve to talk about Obama – when she infact is one step away from being a felon. Troopergate, tax evasion, witchcraft. This is the best John McCain could do????


RF
Comment posted October 6, 2008 @ 1:55 pm

When will they release the video of Michelle Obama calling Bill Clinton “WHITEY”


Eric Dondero
Comment posted October 6, 2008 @ 3:37 pm

Kelo happened way after she was Mayor.

You're obviously trying to dampen libertarian enthusiasm for Sarah Palin. Trust me, it ain't working. We libertarians LOVE SARAH PALIN!!


Isobel Lee
Comment posted October 6, 2008 @ 3:59 pm

If it existed they would have released it by now. So the answer to your question is probably never because it is a work of fiction.


John Seravalli
Comment posted October 6, 2008 @ 7:03 pm

I am assuming that the “new sports complex that included an indoor hockey rink” is owned by the City of Wasilla, is is used by the citizens of Wasilla. This has nothing in common with the Kelo case. Kelo was about taking homes and turning them over to a developer who planned to build a hotel among other things, for PROFIT, that was to be realized by the developer. What was done in Wasilla is no different than any City taking property for a school, police station, city hall or park. By contrast when I asked Obama for America Senator Obama's position on eminent domain, the response was Senator Obama supports eminent domain for “economic development”, exactly as was the case in Kelo. For the record, Senator McCain has released a statement on eminent domain. Senator McCain only support eminent domain for projects used by the public, such as schools and a City owned Sports Complex. Of the three, Governor Palin, Senator McCain and Senator Obama, the only one who supports eminent domain abuse is Senator Obama.


Aaron Epstein
Comment posted October 6, 2008 @ 7:11 pm

You say you are “assuming” that the sports complex is owned by the City of Wasilla. Yes, sports complexes are owned in many cities by cities. But also in many cities they are owned by private enterprises.

Rather than “assume” you might find the true facts and then post your reply!
Aaron


John Seravalli
Comment posted October 6, 2008 @ 7:26 pm

Aaron: Thanks for the advise. I just did the research, the Sports Compex is owned by the City of Wasilla. John Seravalli


Diane_dp
Comment posted October 14, 2008 @ 3:18 pm

A sports complex is not comparable to a police station, a fire station, or a school. Recreation does not have the same standing as educating our children, preventing and solving crimes, or putting out burning buildings.


John Seravalli
Comment posted October 26, 2008 @ 2:33 pm

Diane: True that a sports complex is not a school, firehouse or police station. But those that think eminent domain should not be used for public uses, such as a City owned Sports Complex or a Park are not being reasonable. No State will ever pass legislation that prohibits the use of eminent domain for a City owned Sports Complex or a Park. John Seravalli


Carl Moore
Comment posted October 28, 2008 @ 7:54 pm

The problem is that some people don't want a sports complex. I.e., not everybody benefits, only those who watch the sports, and even some of them might want something else there instead. Eminent Domain is the ultimate in “big government” behavior. What makes it so sick is that the Republicans think of themselves as the party of small government. You might say cities will always exercise their Eminent Doman rights, but citizens will often be angry about it, and if enough have influence, we can stop this type of land-theft that, while it might benefit some people, hurts others, especially the property owners.


Carl Moore
Comment posted October 29, 2008 @ 2:54 am

The problem is that some people don't want a sports complex. I.e., not everybody benefits, only those who watch the sports, and even some of them might want something else there instead. Eminent Domain is the ultimate in “big government” behavior. What makes it so sick is that the Republicans think of themselves as the party of small government. You might say cities will always exercise their Eminent Doman rights, but citizens will often be angry about it, and if enough have influence, we can stop this type of land-theft that, while it might benefit some people, hurts others, especially the property owners.


Frank C. Tannehill
Comment posted January 20, 2010 @ 9:18 am

Because of such actions I started to lose my trust in her. She;s one of those people who seem to support a law as long as it does her good. How can she have two extreme opinions on the same subject?
___________
Frank C. Tannehill
Domain name .


Frank C. Tannehill
Comment posted January 20, 2010 @ 2:18 pm

Because of such actions I started to lose my trust in her. She;s one of those people who seem to support a law as long as it does her good. How can she have two extreme opinions on the same subject?
___________
Frank C. Tannehill
Domain name .


pay per head sportsbook
Comment posted July 31, 2010 @ 10:56 am

there was once a certain Vlad the Impaler who should resurrect only to impale Palin a little.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.