supreme court's eminent domain decision not so obvious

[rone]

Stephen Burzio, an attorney who represents low-income tenants in New York City, criticizes newspaper editorials regarding the Kelo v. New London decision.  It's an easy read, whereas Armando's summary on Daily Kos is more technical, but also quotes in detail the Majority's decision as well as the dissent in order to buttress his point.  Anyway, it's all more complicated than i imagined it to be, but i'm still not happy about how things fell out, especially with Freeport's city hall's quick decision to take advantage of the ruling.

Comments

[palecur.livejournal.com]

I find Volokh (http://www.volokh.com) to be a pretty good place for legal analysis.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

I don't really like the decision either, but one thing that does get lost in discussions of Supreme Court cases is that they can only decide on the specific cases placed before them, and they have to consider precedent.

(This is one of the reasons that I was so frustrated at the heated discussions of Bush v. Gore, on both sides of the case, that acted as if the justices were actually deliberating over who deserved to win the election. While the winner might functionally have been determined by the decision (and I'm not even sure about that, though some of them probably believed it at the time), it wasn't the issue they were deciding. The most suspicious and obnoxious things that happened in Florida weren't even being considered as part of the case and could not have been held relevant.)

They can overturn precedent, on the grounds that the law was interpreted badly before, but the feeling typically seems to be that there has to be a pretty convincingly argued case and some contrary law or precedent invoked. My feeling is that a lot of the precedent in Kelo is probably dumb and bad, but I am pretty much a legal ignoramus.

I think it's interesting that this particular case so quickly led to widely distributed petitions to impeach all the justices involved... who just happen to be all the traditionally liberal justices on the court.

[wisn.livejournal.com]

I'll point at my whinge (http://www.livejournal.com/users/wisn/221190.html) about the issue rather than repeat myself.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Yes, i shoulda linked to your take, too, thanks.

[glitter-ninja.livejournal.com]

My feeling is that a lot of the precedent in Kelo is probably dumb and bad, but I am pretty much a legal ignoramus.

My take on the article is that the author is saying, hey, politicians used eminent domain for bad reasons before, why complain now? Personally, I see this as a reason to examine the entire concept of eminent domain rather than just shrug my shoulders and say, oh well, government has misused eminent domain for decades, I'll go back to worrying about reality television instead.

widely distributed petitions to impeach all the justices involved

I signed one of those, having never signed one before, and under the belief that an online petition means nothing at all. This was the one Kenton posted, which was well-written compared to the others (try sampling a few of the other top petitions for a chuckle one day). I've followed it and I think there's 4,000 signatures, which is something like .000000000002% of the population.

[lusercop.livejournal.com]

On a lighter note, though: http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html (http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html)