Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
... the Court said that this is a local issue best decided by local officials. ....
...The majority said that the Constitution does indeed exist in New London but that it does not necessarily apply. It is up to the states to reign in any local government abusing eminent domain, not the federal goverment...
...I don't see how a logical and rational person can see this as anything but the court handing the ability to govern back to local government and telling them to solve their own problems.
|
If the points above were true and there was no Constitutional question (nor State specifically named in the lawsuit), why did the Supreme Court hear the case?
I think they heard the case because of the broader constitutional issues and it applicability across the nation. In my view a bad precedent has been established ,as Thomas stated, going from a "public use" test to a "public purpose" test.
Also, there was a one vote difference. Four justices saw logic and rationale in ways you do not think possible.