Remember Kelo v. New London?

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by manifold, Sep 28, 2011.

  1. manifold
    Offline

    manifold Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    48,786
    Thanks Received:
    7,239
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    your dreams
    Ratings:
    +20,934
    And where are they today...

    I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Old news....I think Reason reported on this one last year.

    USSC totally screwed the pooch on that travesty of a ruling.

    The Institute for Justice is at the very top of the list of people to whom I annually donate.
     
  3. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    Kelo is among the more misunderstood of recent Court cases. The actual meaning of the ruling was lost as both liberals and conservatives contrived their own meanings to serve their respective political agendas.

    The case had nothing to do with the ‘little people’ at odds with ‘evil corporate monsters.’ At issue only was the definition of ‘public use,’ and if the City’s development plan met the public use requirement. Indeed, Ms. Kelo was requesting the Court make her case an exception to the established definition:

    The majority, therefore, merely followed the precedent established in Fallbrook and rejected the petitioners’ argument for a literal requirement. The petitioners could just as well have been a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation subject to the same eminent domain taking.

    Consequently:

    .

    So again, the Court acknowledges precedent and accedes to the local jurisdiction’s definition of a public purpose.

    With regard to opposition from the right, the irony being the ruling is a victory for local jurisdictions (as opposed to mandates from the Federal level), illustrates the Court’s respect for the legislative process (as opposed to ‘legislating from the bench’), and acknowledges the free market is a better model for economic development (as opposed to government policy).
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2011
  4. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    Why am I not surprised that the precedent for a really dumb ruling was an opinion by Justice Holmes?

    Even back in the Fallbrooke case the justification was lame and contrary to justice.
     
  5. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Statist bullshit remains statist bullshit.

    The home owners in the Kelo case owned their homes.

    The city of New London moved in on them, under the pretext that they'd make more tax revenue off of the land than they were getting from residential property taxes.

    It was a classic example of the big guy trampling the just property rights of the little guy, over the bigger payoff.

    But as long as the big guy is Big Brother, it's all good. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page