State sanctioned thievery or the right thing for the people?
From an anonymous instapundit reader, "the three pillars of prosperity for emerging nations are free markets, rule of law, and private property rights. We just got busted down to third world status."
An NYT opinion piece. To some extent, it does look like some people are setting up a straw man. The question is, how slippery is the slope down which the straw man is being pushed? (oh yeah... tied that metaphor mix together like a boat to the pier holmes) The first answer which comes to mind; the slope is as slippery as the dirty money with which some real estate developers will grease it. Slightly less cynically, all SCOTUS did was tell the states that a commercial development can still be for the public good if it is part of a larger plan to benefit the community.
Here is the decision.
A choice quote from the SCOTUS opinion written by Justice Stevens, "Indeed, while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time." Isn't it ironic... don't you think?
An interesting side note on this issue is that conservative opinion sources have been pretty consistant in their opposition to corporate interests at the expense of the rights of the people. Put that in your stereotype pipe and smoke it (unless it's medicinal pot ;) ).
1 comment:
This decision is an affront to liberty-lovers everywhere. The NYT is only fooling themselves if they think that O'Conner's fears are exaggerated. The lack of a government to support property rights is itself a hindrance to economic growth, and it is a hindrance in which the detriment is not seen because the growth never happens. Not only that, this is one step closer to the right of government to take any historical right away because it is deemed "in the public interest". This decision is a direct assault on individual rights. Where's the ACLU? Oh yeah, fighting the Ten Commandments. Way to go, guys.
I share your pride on the conservatives. We're very ideologically consistent. Look at all the conservatives on the court (actually originalists) who lined up on the right side of things. So much for "protecting corporate interests".
Post a Comment