Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
I think the only precedent established is that these concerns do not belong at the federal level, which I view as a good thing. As I stated before, this ruling caused great pressure on the individual states to correct any ambiguity in the eminent domain laws. I encourage you to check into any action taken by your own state.
|
I think I will side with Thomas.
Quote:
|
Clarence Thomas also penned a separate originalist dissent, in which he argued that the precedents the court's decision relied upon were flawed and that "something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution." He accuses the majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment's "Public Use" clause with a very different "public purpose" test: "This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.'"
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London
Also if this issue did not belong at the federal level, why did they hear the case? I think at least four of the justices thought that it did belong at the federal level. There was dissent at the State Supreme Court as well, the issue is not as simple as 'leave it up to the locals'. I understand that the majority ruled in favor of the city, however I do not understand how you see the issue as a "local" issue. Even in Kennedy's concurring opinion he leaves open the possibility that the action taken by the city may not have been permissible.
Quote:
|
Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion observed that in this particular case the development plan was not "of primary benefit to . . . the developer" and suggested that, if it had been, the taking might have been impermissible.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London