The final outcome does not determine whether the decision was right or wrong. Legal precedent does, whether the desired end was achieved or not. Kelo was rightly decided. As your source points out, it did not come out of the blue. There was precedent behind the decision.

And while the fact that New London remains undeveloped might serve to convince people that the "poetic justice" proves that the Supreme Court erred, there's a danger in this line of thinking. Either it was wrong, or it was not. The undeveloped land in New London is irrelevant to whether the decision was right.

To digress for a bit, it brings to mind the "Hot Coffee at McDonald's" case. The jury was swayed by the gruesomeness of the woman's injuries, when in fact that should have been thrown out as irrelevant.

Either the woman did a stupid thing, or she didn't. Either she's responsible for her injuries or she isn't. The magnitude of her injuries doesn't suddenly shift the fault to McDonald's.

Had she only suffered a slight first-degree burn, there would have been no question of her fault. But because she sustained third degree burns requiring skin grafts and she can't afford the surgery, then it suddenly becomes McDonald's fault, because they have more money? I say it doesn't.

Kelo was either fairly decided or it wasn't. The fact that New London now has a huge swath of undeveloped land is irrelevant.

Kelo was a 5-4 decision with a strong and well reasoned dissent.

I hope you are not suggesting Patrick, that the "rightness" of an outcome swings on one vote.

Lot of grey areas in Constitutional law, and good arguments on both sides.

I think most libertarians would find the dissent more persuasive than the majority opinion.

@ Patrick. I can't believe you set yourself up like that. ((Well, Hey. If stupidity is a precedent, then there's nothing we can do.) There's a richer history to the Kelo decision than you offer us. My own summary would suggest that the legal pendulum of community organizing has swung too far. Judges learned in the law can make or crush a fortune for private enterprise. All part of the risk game. But they shouldn't be conflated with intelligent venture capitalists. Especially when they're using someone else's property for their experiments.

Patrick is correct in that the final outcome never matters to a leftist. (And Kelo was a leftist decision -- the four leftist members of the SC persuading Anthony Kennedy to go along with them.)

But precedent doesn't either. If it did, we would not have most of the extra-constitutional government expansion that has occurred in the last century -- after 140 years of (primarily) very different "precedent".

No, what matters to a leftist is the intention. If the intention is pure, everything is always justified. Obamacare is the object lesson of our day. Just listen to its apologists. It doesn't matter what actually happens to people, how much more expensive premiums or higher deductibles become, how hard it is to sign up, how insecure confidential personal information is with the convicts who operate the exchanges, how the health insurance of 90% of us is on the way to being screwed up in the name of social justice, or about the massive consumer fraud perpetrated on all of us just in order to twist enough arms to pass the thing. They talk right by all this, and keep harping about how wonderful insuring everyone will be, no matter at how mediocre a level.

No sir, the intention that no one be able to earn better health care than anyone else is the holy grail. Any expense, any inconvenience, any fraud, any degree of coercion to make the public behave in an approved manner and purchase the desired product, is worth achieving the exalted intention.

Kelo was decided for exactly the same reason. Any amount of demolition of private property was justified to achieve the *intention* of approved redevelopment of a portion of a city. The fact it never happened is irrelevant -- the intention was realized so those creating the intention could feel smug about themselves and all they do for others -- while in reality exerting the maximum amount of control over the "recipients". That's all that ever counts.

The final outcome does not determine whether the decision was right or wrong. Legal precedent does, whether the desired end was achieved or not. Kelo was rightly decided. As your source points out, it did not come out of the blue. There was precedent behind the decision. -- Patrick at January 31, 2014 2:54 PM

I take it you also support the Wickard v. Filburn decision?

But if you go back to the Founders they would roll over in their grave for that decision

The idea that I can't grow stuff on my property, or even own it because some mall wants to build where I live is just beyond a reasonable idea.

cpabroker: Patrick is correct in that the final outcome never matters to a leftist.

No, the final outcome never matters, period. Either the government has the right to force a person to sell, or it doesn't. The fact that the land was never developed doesn't suddenly mean Kelo was wrong, nor would it, if the land was developed, mean that the Kelo decision is right.

What is it with you, Patrick, that you continually back the idea that you are a thing to be used by your government?

You even misrepresent this legal status as binary in your zeal.

Admit it: the only reason you post on this blog is that there is a "submit" button.

To address something I overlooked before in cpabroker's post, I don't think the intention should matter, either. What matters is what the law says.

Does the law say that they can do this? Yes. For good, ill, or whether the idea is noble, all of that doesn't matter one iota.

If the law is wrong, we should change it. But as it stands, the law says what it says, and we don't put it on hold because Suzette Kelo happened to have the most adorable pink house. We don't decide the law is wrong because, after all, New London was never developed. And we don't ponder whether the intentions are as pure as the driven snow.

If government actions can't be judged on their results, why bother? Kelo has to be evaluated by the outcome, so that in the future, we'll know if this particular decision was valid and should be repeated. The intentions of the lawyers are worthless. It was a terrible decision, based on faulty reasoning and was proved to be faulty because NOTHING HAPPENED. There was no development. Mrs. Kelo's pink house was more of a benefit to the community than than the courts, the lawyers, or New London's bureaucrats.
The law was not just wrong, it was evil and stupid.

Patrick,
If you really think the Sipremes can't ever be wrong just bc they use precedent, I have two words for you: Dred Scott. You aren't really lawyer or a constitutional scholar, you only play one on the Internet; and you aren't that good at it.

Patrick kind of has a point - definitely food for thought. If the law is wrong it should be changed. Apparently enough voting citizens are OK with it that the politicians they elect are not motivated to make any changes. I think that's the biggest problem.

One of the processes we have for dealing with the injustices of wrong laws is the courts. If a law is in conflict with a higher law, then government officials have no right to enforce it, and the court should rule so.

Finizio, the lawyer who taught at Boston's Northeastern University: "On the local level the case was about taxation and corporate development... Then, when it got to court, it became a matter of constitutional law, of limits on government power."

The Supreme Court's case wasn't about whether or not the City of New London taking Kelo's property was consistent with the law, but whether or not, under the Constitution, the city has a right to do such a thing, regardless of what the law said. The Supreme Court judges who prevailed were wrong.

It should say, Supremes.... Sorry typo...

The courts are not obligated to rubber-stamp any law on the books in a given jurisdiction, just because it's on the books. There is this little matter of Amendment V to the U.S. constitution, which visits deprivation of property without "due process of law" except for "public use". Such stricture against taking is extended to the states by Amendment XIV, Sec. 1. These terms "due process" and "public use" used to mean something specific -- the generally understood meanings served to carefully restrict what and in what circumstances the government could confiscate private property.

But a century of progressive jurisprudence has served to obliterate these generally understood limits, to the point that if you live in a state with liberal eminent domain laws, like Connecticut at the time of Kelo, there's virtually no way the government can't come up with a pretense to justify the taking of your property. The only way you can fight it is with political connections. I believe this utilization of such connections, which unfortunately Kelo and her compatriots lacked, is part and parcel of the commonly understood definition of fascism.

KateC: If government actions can't be judged on their results, why bother?

Because it's in the Constitution. For good or ill, eminent domain is in the Constitution. If the Constitution is wrong, amend it. No, Amy, KateC is absolutely wrong.

Sheep mommy: If you really think the Sipremes can't ever be wrong just bc they use precedent, I have two words for you: Dred Scott. You aren't really lawyer or a constitutional scholar, you only play one on the Internet; and you aren't that good at it.

I'm more of a constitutional scholar now than you could ever be. You think you understand but you don't.

The problem with Dred Scott (which, by the way, cited very little in the way of judicial precedent. Their views that blacks could not citizens were based upon the framers' racist attitudes toward them. The man who wrote "All men are created equal" happened to be among the largest slaveholders in Virginia and owned more slaves than any other president.

It light of this staggering piece of hypocrisy, the Supreme Court ruled that "all men were created equal" in the Declaration of Independence was never intended to include black men. What else could you possibly conclude, when half of the Founding Fathers (including George Washington) owned slaves and didn't seem to have any moral qualms about doing so?

Was Dred Scott a prejudiced decision? Was it an immoral decision? Absolutely. But according to the law, and the standards set by the founding fathers, it was also in accordance with the law of our land. That's why the majority opinion of Dred Scott v. Sandford plainly stated that it was not their call to worry about the justness of the decision. Theirs was to interpret the law. That's why it took a bloody and three Constitutional Amendments to overturn it. Because the Founding Fathers decided to punt on this issue, and leave it to future generations to decide.

And we paid a heavy price for their unwillingness to stand up for human rights.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand this. You think you've made a valid point by bringing up Dred Scott.

So, don't tell me I'm no constitutional scholar. You have as much right to decide that as I have to claim to be the messiah.

I just find it very ironic that those who shriek about Constitutional rights when discussing the TSA are the first ones to throw out the Constitution when it comes to eminent domain.

Because it's in the Constitution. For good or ill, eminent domain is in the Constitution. If the Constitution is wrong, amend it. No, Amy, KateC is absolutely wrong.

The words eminent domain are NOT in the U.S. Constitution. The closest you get is in the Fifth Amendment:

It also prohibits government from taking private property for public use without "just compensation", the basis of eminent domain in the United States.

.
And you should note the words public use. How is a privately owned business park or a mall public use?

Actually, I do have experience in this area and it doesn't come from an extensive reading of John Grishman novels or hours spent watching crime procedurals on television. I also refuse to allow you to draw me into an extended debate on this topic, as I am familiar wit your "style" of debate. You see, I have a life and will not waste a Saturday on an armchair expert of what appears to be everything under the sun. I have seen people try to reason with you and get nowhere.

I expect that I will now see a 1,200 response from on how I am wrong and you are an extraordinary intellect that has been forced to hang out on Amy's website because those damn conservatives have a conspiracy against you; or whatever reason you have not actually working in any of the fields over which you claim "mastery". What is you actually do for a living anyway? Nevermind, I don't want to have wade through one of your endless diatribes for answe I know is not coming. Although, I might if you promise to tell us how Obamacare has helped you. Remember when you were the only expert on that topic? I do. How is that working out for you?

You do? Please tell me when that happened, Sheep mommy. I have no recollection of saying I was an expert on Obamacare, much less the only expert on Obamacare, a lengthy piece of legislation that I'm not especially inclined to read. (I'd have to at least read the whole thing before I could even start to claim any expertise on the subject.)

However, if you're going to accuse of me supporting socialized medicine because I have absolutely no problem with paying taxes to care for sick people, guilty as charged. There must be a million things more heinous than healthcare that are covered by our taxes. "Oh, horror of horrors! Now they're spending my taxes on providing healthcare. Monstrous!"

Jim P. And you should note the words public use. How is a privately owned business park or a mall public use?

Thank you for proving to us all that you've never read the Kelo decision. Nonetheless you choose to pass judgment on it.

Mind-blowingly stupid. I can't fathom how otherwise intelligent people would just harrumph "unconstitutional!" about a decision they flatly refuse to read.

But I'm glad you all think it's okay. I think I'll write my review of Amy's next book without bothering to read it. It'll save time.

The opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Stevens covers why this is "public use."

For a taste, from Kelo vs. the City of New London (that annoying case that you refuse to read but still feel qualified to pass judgment on):

Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158—164 (1896). Thus, in a case upholding a mining company’s use of an aerial bucket line to transport ore over property it did not own, Justice Holmes’ opinion for the Court stressed “the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test.” Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527, 531 (1906).9 We have repeatedly and consistently rejected that narrow test ever since.

The opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Stevens covers why this is "public use." -- Patrick at February 1, 2014 3:44 PM

Reding the summary still comes back to the fact that SCOTUS still has a view that they can break the the Fifth, Ninth and Tenth amendment rights because you have a piece of property that you own.

You are saying that if you are standing in a crowd any government official can come and take away your laptop because thye lwnat it and give you a $100 for it because they are a government agent.

I take the time to fix up my house to my desired dream three miles from a highway on-ramp. Some company wants to buy out my house to setup a flea market. Yest the township may make more money, but why do I have to give up my quiet life?

Fuck you when think the government is right.

". There must be a million things more heinous than healthcare that are covered by our taxes. "Oh, horror of horrors! Now they're spending my taxes on providing healthcare. Monstrous!"

Posted by: Patrick at February 1, 2014 2:50 PM

The government always has been spending taxes on healthcare, called Medicare, and Medicaid.

But if you are talking about Obamacare, no, the government is not spending that money on "healthcare" per se. They are spending it on insurance companies to provide extremely expensive, "health insurance" with high deductibles, and high copays.

Signed up yet Patrick?

Very sorry, Amy. I will use another example when I want to illustrate the point of yelling about a SCOTUS decision that you have not yet read. But I do think it's as ridiculous as writing a book review about a book you haven't read. (I have every intention of purchasing it and reading it before I actually review it.)

Jim P., try that response again when you're sober. (And I think it's hilarious how you're pointing to a summary on the decision, yet still refusing to read the actual decision. The Kelo vs. New London decision is not that difficult to understand. And it's not that long. Stop being afraid of it.)

Isab, I have no reason to sign up. My insurance isn't going anywhere.

Jim P., try that response again when you're sober. (And I think it's hilarious how you're pointing to a summary on the decision, yet still refusing to read the actual decision. The Kelo vs. New London decision is not that difficult to understand. And it's not that long. Stop being afraid of it.) -- Patrick at February 1, 2014 7:12 PM

Drunk or sober, high or low, single or married you refuse to get the point -- SCOTUS is still ignoring the the Fifth, Ninth and Tenth amendments rights because you have a piece of property that you own.

The Fifth:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Ninth:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Where in any of that says I have to move because you want to put up a mall? Even using the “the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test.” is an obscenity. That is saying I don't have the freedom to let my property grow wild. Or just own it to own it. Why should I be forced to sell it to you? What says that you are making a better decision? Let alone the government that has made the BMV a hell hole? The same government that has created a puvlic school that is considered a shithole. And they are using your tax dollars to do it.

Well, Jim, then I have no more argument with you. You're free to believe that the Supreme Court is wrong in the Kelo decision and for the reasons you cite.

I'm pointing out, however, that the Supreme Court did not break new ground with this decision. In fact, one of the cases they drew upon to establish precedent was in the short (and not fully adequate) excerpt I provided.

The Supremes seem to believe (with precedent already established) that as long as you are not forcing Private Person A to sell to Private Person B, who will use the land for a purpose that in no way benefits the general public, anything goes. That's how they interpret the Fifth. With this in mind, the ninth and tenth don't even enter into this.

If you don't like it, your remedy is very simple: amend the Constitution.

If you don't like it, your remedy is very simple: amend the Constitution. -- Patrick at February 2, 2014 4:16 AM

Amend it to say what -- That the Fifth really applies as it was written? That the ICC means that you can't force commerce?

And again -- what makes SCOTUS so much smarter than the rest of us. There were multiple justices that were known to be insane, incompetent, and incorret, let alone agenda driven?

Try amending it to a more narrow definition of "public use." There's no law that says "public use" can't be defined in the Constitution.

I'm not arguing that every SCOTUS justice is smarter than the rest of us, or aren't agenda driven, or even sane.

But since you don't like the suggestion that we work to get the Constitution amended, what are you suggesting? The system in place is the only one we have. Nothing short of open revolt will change it.

Kelo was rightly decided.

So was Dred Scott.

I take it that you're ok that at any time any government agency can come along and say "nice house you have there, we want it, here's your payment at what we determined was fair market value *wink*wink* now GTFO" for any reason or no reason at all?

Even if it is to give that property to their buddies for a song?

Well, I R A, since that's not what happened with Kelo, I don't think you need to worry.

True enough Patrick, but only beacuse their buddies went elsewhere cause the found land even cheaper.

But the people who did live there were still underpaid for their property which government officals DID intend to give away for less than they paid to get it

"Isab, I have no reason to sign up. My insurance isn't going anywhere."

Fascinating. Here we have the "block", beyond which the costs of the Affordable Health Care Act will not be discussed!

It might not even be correct that "my insurance isn't going anywhere". Blue Cross, Blue Shield was forced to increase costs and decrease benefits for the employees of Savannah River Remediation and Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, both DOE contractors. What insurance plan in the US is untouched? One exempted by the Administration? How long will that last?

Alas, it appears that the plight of others is not an issue. Everything Is Just Fine!

"The final outcome does not determine whether the decision was right or wrong. Legal precedent does, whether the desired end was achieved or not."

This is possibly the best evidence of the inhumanity of a poster on this blog I've ever seen.

People, people who could have been your own neighbors or yourself, had their personal property taken from them by the government for the profit of a private corporation, and you think that's just fine. Why do I say that? You're not opposing the idea - not a syllable of regret.

If you are going to lick the hand of the agency that would do such a thing, at least wear the brown shirt.

If you back this idea, you back the idea YOU have to give up anything you own at any time, for any reason that a city council or above can invent, and that this will always be perfectly fine if only somebody else had it done to them first.

Read those words I have quoted above again. Recognize that this principle is the one used for tyrants to seize power again and again in history.

I don't think you've even bothered to notice that legal precedent changes. It was completely legal in this country to OWN other people. I would like to think that you would oppose that idea, but your history indicates that you would not if you were living under the administration which made it so.

What insurance plan in the US is untouched? One exempted by the Administration? How long will that last?

Just PAST the mid term elections