mr. didden was telling an accurate story? >> the didden case presented a narrow issue. >> officer, remove that man immediately! we will stand in order. >> defend the babies! >> we will stand in order. officers will remove that man. and they did. and they did. again, both senator sessions and i have said as all previous chairs and ranking members have said, this is a hearing of the united states senate. the judge deserves respect. senators asking questions deserve respect. i will order the removal of anyone who disrupts it, whether they're supportive of the nominee or opposed to the nominee, whether they're supportive of a position i take or opposed to it. we will have the respect that should be accorded to both the nominee and to the united states senate. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you. you handled this well throughout and i support you 100%. >> thank you. >> senator grassley, we did stop the clock there. i did not take from your time. >> thank you. people always say i have the ability to turn people on. >> maybe you co

mr. didden's property to be taken. it is hard to believe an individual's property can be seized when he refuses to be extorted without any constitutional violation taken place. it is harder to believe under these circumstances mr. didden did not deserve his day in court or at least some additional legal analysis. can you please explain how mr. didden could have filed the lawsuit in july of 2002 before he was extorted november 2003? and also, please explain why a july 2002 filing would not have been dismissed because there was no proof that mr. didden suffered an injury, only an allegation that he might be injured in the future. >> the basis of mr. didden's lawsuit was the state can't take my property and give it to a private developer. because that is not consistent with the takings clause of the constitution. to the extent he knew the state, and there is no dispute about it, that the state has found the public use for his property. that it had a public purpose. that it had an argument with the private developer to let

mr. didden prperty to be ten. it isard to believe an individual's property can b seized when he refes to be exorted without any constitutional olation taken place. it is harder to believe under these circumstances mr. didden did not desee his day incourt or at lest some ditional legal analysis. can you plese explain how mr. didden cou have filed the lawsuit in july of 2002 before he was extorted november 2003? and also, please explai why a july2002 filing wou not have been dismissed beuse there was proof that mr. didden suffered an injury, only an allegation at he might be injured in the future. the bas mr. didden's lawsuit was the stat can'take my property and give it to pvate veloper. beause that is not consistent th the takgs clause of the conitution. to the extent he knewthe state, and the is no diute about it, that the state has found the public use for his property. that it had a public purpose. that it had an argument with the private developerto let th developer tke the property he knew that he as injured

mr. didden was telling an accurate story? >> the didden case presented a narrow issue that the court -- >> officer, remove that man immediately. we will stand in order. we will stand in order. officers will remove that man. they did. and they did. again, in both senate sessions, i said to all rank and members this is a hearing of the united states senate. the judge deserves respect. senators asking questions deserve respect. i will order the removal of anyone who disrupts it, whether they are supportive of the nominee or opposed to the nominee. whether they are supportive of a position i take or opposed to it. we will have respect that should be accorded to the nominee and the united states senate. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think you have handled this well throughout and i support you 100%. >> thank you. senator grassley, we did stop the clock. we did not take from your time. >> thank you. people always say i have the ability to turn people on. maybe you could start over again with your sentence, please. >> i hope i rememb

mr. diddens property to be taken.it's hard to believe it can be seized when he refuses to be extorted without violation taking place. under these circumstances, mr. didden did not get served his day in court of additional legal analysis. could you explain how mr. didden could have filed his lawsuit july 2002, before he was extorted november 2003 and also please explain why a july 2002 filing would not have been dismissed because there was no proof that mr. didden suffered an injury, only an allegation he might be injured in the future. >> the basis of mr. diddens lawsuit was the state can't take my property and give it to a private developer. because that is not consistent with the taking clause of the constitution. to the extent he knew the state and there's no dispute about this, the state found the public use for his property that it had a public purpose, that it had an agreement with the private developer to let that developer take the property, he knew that he was injured because his basic argument was state can'

mr. didden, mr. didden did not deserve his day in court or at least some additional legal analysis. could you please explain how mr. didden could have filed his lawsuit july 2002 before he was exported in november 2003? and also, please explain why a july 2002 filing would not have been dismissed because there was no proof that mr. didden had suffered an injury, only an allegation that he might be injured in the future. >> the basis of mr. dayton's lawsuit was, the state can't take my property and give it to a private developer, and because that is not consistent with the takings clause of the constitution. to the extent he knew the state, and there is no dispute about this, that the state had found a public use for his property, that it had a public purpose, that it had an agreement with the private developer to let that developer take the property, he knew that he was injured. it was his basic argument, the state can't do this. it can't take my property and give it to a private developer. the supreme court in kelo addressed that question and said, under certain circumstances, the

mr. koppel for yours, and i frankly, i feel now obligated to look more closely at the didden case, you raise more serious concerns and i guess i was thinking this is worse than i thought after hearing your testimony. i do think that it does impact the property rights of great importance, and thank you for sharing that. if you want a brief comment, my time is it shall. >> yes, thank you, senator. i agree with you, it raises very important concerns and these sorts of decisions affect thousands of people around the country, particularly poor and minorities, as the naacp pointed out in their amicus brief where they indicated that the poor and vulnerable and ethnic minorities tend to be targeted for these sorts of condemnations. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. senator kyle. >> thank you, madam chairman. first of all, let me acknowledge those on the panel who i know, but thank all of you for being here. luis freeh, it's great to see you again. i respect your opinions, i also respected the way david cohen played baseball very, very much and i used to root for you very much. i didn't see that

didden case versus the village of portchester. raise serious concerns about whether you understand the protection provided by the constitution for individual property rights. in this case, mr. diden alleged that his local village government violated his fifth amendment rights when it took his property to build a national chain drugstore. at a meeting with the government agency, another developer, mr. diden was told that he could give the developer $800,000 or a 50% interest in his pharmacy project, and if mr. diden did not accept either condition, the government would simply take his property. two days after mr. diden refused to comply with these demands, the government began proceeding to take his land. the district court denied mr. diden his day in court. your panel confirmed that decision in a five-paragraph opinion. why did you deny mr. diden his day in court? how can these facts in essence allegations of extortion at least not warrant the opportunity to call witnesses to see if mr. diden was telling an accurate story? >> the did encase presented a narrow issue that the court below -- [yelling] >> officer, remove that man immediately. [yelling] >> we will stand in orde