Monday, June 27, 2005

Briefly

As usual, the screaming is louder than the actual judgement in the Emminent Domain case. I suggest those who care read the opinion. They actually address the very slippery slope, Wal-Mart buying up a neighborhood, argument:
It is further argued [by the petitioners] that without a bright-line rule nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen A’s property to citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will put the property to a more productive use and thus pay more taxes. Such a one-to-one transfer of property, executed outside the confines of an integrated development plan, is not presented in this case. While such an unusual exercise of government power would certainly raise a suspicion that a private purpose was afoot,17 the hypothetical cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when they arise.18 They do not warrant the crafting of an artificial restriction on the concept of public use.
They have, in fact, not changed anything about the application of the 5th amendment, rather they have upheld the courts' usual hands off approach. It's funny how people don't mind judicial activism when it suits them.

(Note: I haven't read the dissent yet, but I suspect it won't change my mind. It is legally meaningless anyway.)

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home