# SCOTUS: Cities can seize homes for economic development **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 23, 2005, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535 "2005-06-23T14:57:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![zenith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e19b73/32.png) [@zenith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zenith)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/181 "2005-06-24T15:10:56Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > (comparing the list of “liberal” justices and noting she voted against the majority in this case) Huh? So, Ruth Bader Ginzburg, formerly of an organization considered to be “liberal”(the ACLU), voted WITH Scalia, Thomas Rehnquist, and Sandra Day O’connor, did she? That would make 5 votes AGAINST greater eminent domain powers, not FOR. And as to the question of Sarpy County Planner Ken Tex’ professional association ties, the Omaha World-Herald reports that he does not belong to AICP. Knowing what I know of the bastards that run things here (Republicans,Democrats;no significant difference–all are no good) it didn’t surprise me that their “professional” really isn’t one. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/182 "2005-06-24T15:14:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The way I have been using my terms, this case doesn’t quite fit. There is a nuance that my previous examples didn’t explore. > > When I talked about _Kyllo_, I said the process was correct. The “process” was interpreting the words “reasonable search.” The result reached was one I disagreed with. > > This case does not draw on penumbras or emanations, so the process is cleaner than it might be. But it’s also finding that “public use” means something that was never intended. I objected to the Court finding that “Equal Protection” meant something completely unintended by the authors of that phrase, and I object to the Court finding that “public use” means something radically different than the authors of THAT phrase wanted it to. Seems like we need more than 4 categories then, beause if this is “right process”, there really isn’t much to complain about. > [@](#): > > And here, again, the problem: you guys that were thrilled when the Court decided _Lawrence v. Texas_ and _Roe v. Wade_ and _Casey v. Planned Parenthood_… you cheered the Court for imposing its own meaning on the Constitution and ignoring the dead white men whose meaning originally shaped the Constitution. > > Now you’re not cheering. > > But you created the monster. You set the monster free. As long as the monster slayed your enemies, you were happy. Now it’s beginning to gore some friends, and suddenly you’re aghast? > > _An ye reap, so shall ye sow._ I can’t for the life of me understand why so many folks on this board don’t get that fundamental idea. The only conclusion I can draw is that they are willing to trust the justices to rule in their favor more often than not. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/183 "2005-06-24T15:19:15Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > If we could ever find that third party in politics that could be successful, it could start by taking an explicity pro-freedom, pro property rights stance. I think a lot of modern Liberals have been moving in the direction of Classical liberalism in economics as well. Socialism and Communism have been waning in popularity for 30 years. Tax policy remains a big difference, but I think there’s a lot more overlap now than there was even 10 years ago. It’s all so… disorienting. But in a nice high-on-pot sort of way. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/184 "2005-06-24T15:34:39Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I can’t for the life of me understand why so many folks on this board don’t get that fundamental idea. The only conclusion I can draw is that they are willing to trust the justices to rule in their favor more often than not. Because it’s more rhetorical bullshit, that’s why. This isn’t a case of a activist court, it’s a case of too much judicial restraint. Read the fucking opinion, including Kennedy’s concurrence. The judiciary in this case bent over backwards to defer to the legislature, which is precisely what **Bricker** wants to happen in every case, (well, every case except the ones he disagrees with). Then he comes in and pretends a idiotic turn of a phrase is valid criticism. It’s hypocritical bullshit. Just like Scalia’s disregard for originalism in Nollan and Lucas. Then he, and you, show up here and try and paint the decision as some kind of out of control judiciary. It’s complete and utter bullshit and I, for one, am sick of it. The crap about Dred Scott being a substantive due process case, or that this case is judicial activism is just plain bullshit! ::deep breath:: Now that I have my ranting done, I’ll just say I beg to differ with your position, **John**. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/185 "2005-06-24T15:46:45Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Because it’s more rhetorical bullshit, that’s why. This isn’t a case of a activist court, it’s a case of too much judicial restraint. Read the fucking opinion, including Kennedy’s concurrence. The judiciary in this case bent over backwards to defer to the legislature, which is precisely what **Bricker** wants to happen in every case, (well, every case except the ones he disagrees with). Then he comes in and pretends a idiotic turn of a phrase is valid criticism. It’s hypocritical bullshit. Just like Scalia’s disregard for originalism in Nollan and Lucas. I read it, including the dissenting opinion. As Justice O’Conner said in the [dissenting opinion](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108) (my emphasis of the part I particularly take issue with): > [@](#): > > Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded–i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public–in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property–and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. > [@](#): > > Then he, and you, show up here and try and paint the decision as some kind of out of control judiciary. It’s complete and utter bullshit and I, for one, am sick of it. The crap about Dred Scott being a substantive due process case, or that this case is judicial activism is just plain bullshit! When the justices can alter the very wording of the constitution at will, what “control” are they under? > [@](#): > > Now that I have my ranting done, I’ll just say I beg to differ with your position, **John**. Respectfully noted. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/186 "2005-06-24T15:47:15Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I can’t for the life of me understand why so many folks on this board don’t get that fundamental idea. The only conclusion I can draw is that they are willing to trust the justices to rule in their favor more often than not. But the thing is, many of us do “get that fundamental idea,” but we also judge the particular outcomes outside of a legalistic contect. **Bricker** is correct that i was happy with the result of _Lawrence v. Texas_ etc., and that i’m now unhappy with this decision. But my happiness and my unhappiness have nothing to do with whether the Supreme Court is being consistent, or with whether or not they are following a particular mode of constitutional interpretation. My concern is whether or not i think the outcome is a good one. I’m not saying that the question of Supreme Court authority and interpretation are trivial, or that they don’t deserve debate. But the problem is that, sage and learned as they may be, the Supreme Court justices are also human, and are a part of the political process. You could probably count on the fingers of both hands the number of people in America who care more about the process than the actual outcomes in these cases (OK, i’m being hyperbolic). For the vast majority of Americans, including politicians who should know better, the key to identifying an “activist” judge is determining whether or not the outcome is one that you like. This is one big political football, and when people on both sides are measuring the process by outcomes rather than the internal consistency of the process itself, then for many of us who have little influence on the process, it often seems that all we can do is hope that the outcomes are the ones we want. Is this an ideal situation? Surely not. I guess the only redeeming feature—if you can call it that—is that the game is being played by people on all sides of the political spectrum. I just get a little annoyed when it’s those on the left/liberal side of the spectrum who are most often occused of inconsistency or hypocrisy in such cases, when as far as i can see there are plenty of conservatives who adopt a similar results-based attitude to Supreme Court decisions. Also, as **Hamlet** suggests, there are plenty of people in this country who push a political agenda under the guise of disinterested legalism. They actually _pretend_ (whether to themselves or just to the outside world) that the process is all-important, but seem in many cases to interpret the process in ways that hew suspiciously close to their particular political leanings. If there’s something worse in politics than naked partisanship, it’s partisanship trying to dress itself up as neutrality or objectivity. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/187 "2005-06-24T15:48:06Z")
> [@zenith](#): > > So, Ruth Bader Ginzburg, formerly of an organization considered to be “liberal”(the ACLU), voted WITH Scalia, Thomas Rehnquist, and Sandra Day O’connor, did she? That would make 5 votes AGAINST greater eminent domain powers, not FOR. And that shows the TRUE EVIL of this decision, that a CLEAR MAJORITY of Justices voted against it yet were overruled by CCMPAC (Corrupt City Manager Political Action Committee–everybody has a PAC these days)! 😉 Hmmmm, I coulda swored she voted against it… (taking a deep breath and melding my mind with my spirit guide, a Stalinist from Greenwich Village, who will help me justify anything) She no doubt realized that, though it was odiferous, one hundred years of precedent did support it so she, like her fellows on the Court, held her nose while voting in favor of the decision. For some reason I’m taken with a desire to smoke pot and talk about what will happen when the Revolution comes while Miles Davis plays in the background. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/188 "2005-06-24T16:08:37Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I read it, including the dissenting opinion. As Justice O’Conner said in the [dissenting opinion](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108) (my emphasis of the part I particularly take issue with) Justice O’Connor also wrote the majority opinion in Midkiff (one of the precedential cases), and, in this case, specifically rejected the original intent determination that apparently comes so easily to **Bricker** by saying: > [@O'Connor](#): > > But “public ownership” and “use-by-the-public” are sometimes too constricting and impractical ways to define the scope of the Public Use Clause. Thus we have allowed that, in certain circumstances and to meet certain exigencies, takings that serve a public purpose also satisfy the Constitution even if the property is destined for subsequent private use. She goes on to say, almost precisely, what I said: that the majority was too deferential to the legislature. If you read her entire opinion, it’s pretty clear that her ruling has nothing to do with an out of control judiciary or an abandonment of original intent, and rather with too much deference by the judiciary to the acts of the legislative branch. Put another way: SHE AGREES WITH ME!! > [@JohnMace](#): > > When the justices can alter the very wording of the constitution at will, what “control” are they under? Yet more rhetorical fluff. I’ll point out, once again, that this case is not a redefinition of “public use”. It very well may be an expansion of what is required to be a “public purpose”, but it does not “alter the very wording of the constitution.” > [@JohnMace](#): > > Respectfully noted. Thanks. I have nothing against you, but I’m sick and tired of every judicial ruling that someone doesn’t like being laid at the feet of “judicial activists” or non-originalists. ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/189 "2005-06-24T16:09:41Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > Can anyone explain SCOTUS’ reasoning here? It’s gotta be those goddamned ninjas behind this. there’s no other explaination. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/190 "2005-06-24T16:11:24Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > But the thing is, many of us do “get that fundamental idea,” but we also judge the particular outcomes outside of a legalistic contect. I find that very confusing. You judge a \*legal \*decision outside of a legalistic context? Why? > [@](#): > > …This is one big political football, and when people on both sides are measuring the process by outcomes rather than the internal consistency of the process itself, then for many of us who have little influence on the process, it often seems that all we can do is hope that the outcomes are the ones we want. That sounds like you’re saying two wrongs make a right. > [@](#): > > Is this an ideal situation? Surely not. I guess the only redeeming feature—if you can call it that—is that the game is being played by people on all sides of the political spectrum. I just get a little annoyed when it’s those on the left/liberal side of the spectrum who are most often occused of inconsistency or hypocrisy in such cases, when as far as i can see there are plenty of conservatives who adopt a similar results-based attitude to Supreme Court decisions. Yes, people on both sides play this game. I just think it’s possible to sidestep both the liberals and the coservatives who do it. I don’t want to put words in your your mouth, but are you saying it isn’t? I, for one, was just as quick to condemn Scalia for his ruling on the medicinal marijuana case. > [@](#): > > Also, as **Hamlet** suggests, there are plenty of people in this country who push a political agenda under the guise of disinterested legalism. They actually _pretend_ (whether to themselves or just to the outside world) that the process is all-important, but seem in many cases to interpret the process in ways that hew suspiciously close to their particular political leanings. If there’s something worse in politics than naked partisanship, it’s partisanship trying to dress itself up as neutrality or objectivity. I agree 100%. But what I take issue with is the assumption that if some, even most, people do it that all people do it. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/191 "2005-06-24T16:40:02Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I find that very confusing. You judge a \*legal \*decision outside of a legalistic context? Why? Because, contrary to what some people would like to believe, these are political decisions as well as legal decisions. It’s just not possible to completely separate these two areas. The Court isn’t considered a branch of the government for nothing, and even if it should ideally be above the fray of partisan politics, even people with the best of intentions often allow their politics to impinge on other decisions that they make. So, for people concerned with the political impact of the Supreme Court decisions on the way that Americans live, focusing on outcomes probably seems like a not-unreasonable thing to do. > [@John Mace](#): > > That sounds like you’re saying two wrongs make a right. No. I’m simply saying that, given the difficulty of changing the situation (after all, we as voters don’t get to nominate Supreme Court justices, nor do we get to vote them out), and the fact that political biases have influenced Supreme Court decisions through much of the nation’s history, it’s understandable that people cross their fingers and hope for the decision that fits most closely with their political views. > [@John Mace](#): > > Yes, people on both sides play this game. I just think it’s possible to sidestep both the liberals and the coservatives who do it. I don’t want to put words in your your mouth, but are you saying it isn’t? I, for one, was just as quick to condemn Scalia for his ruling on the medicinal marijuana case. > > I agree 100%. But what I take issue with is the assumption that if some, even most, people do it that all people do it. Well, i’ll take these two paragraphs together, because they’re related. I do believe that it’s possible to make a genuine, good-faith attempt to sidestep the political issues and look purely at the legal questions. The problem, it seems to me, is that many folks who do this adopt a different kind of problematic standpoint—they assume that, because they are making a genuine attempt to deal with the legal issues, their own interpretation is the only one that might be correct. There is too little willingness to concede, in many instances, that even with the best of intentions people might disagree on certain interpretations or legal conclusions. That is, much as some people don’t want to admit it, even this legalistic debate is, itself, fraught with questions of politics and interpretation. I’m not trying to make an assertion here that everyone is equally qualified to judge these things, or that all interpretations are equally valid. Some are, in my opinion, better than others. But it seems to me that many people who focus on the process also make an attempt to pretend that, by doing so, they are somehow stepping above the realm of politics and personal predispositions. I would argue that, rather than stepping above the politics, they have merely stepped sideways into a place where politics and personal predispositions are cloaked in a different set of debates. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/192 "2005-06-24T16:48:37Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I find that very confusing. You judge a \*legal \*decision outside of a legalistic context? Why?.. I have touched on this from time to time, and, while I do not pretend to speak for **mhendo** I will at least give you my take on this. It is my belief that the Law is nothing more than a flawed human mechanism that is reaching for the Good. As a (I hope) morally developed human I have an internal map of the Good. So, when a criticism leveled at “you guys” a la **Bricker** because I cheer decisions that I agree with and complain about those that I do not, generally my reaction is to say “yeah? So what?” All that this tells me is that in some cases the Law succeeds at more closely emulating the Good, and at other times it fails. It really is a question of perspective and priority. Some people, I fear, see the Law as an end to itself and at the end of the day are happy as long as it is internally consistent, no matter the outcome. Others, myself included, see the Law as an institution that is having an ongoing dialog with the people that it should be serving, and do not value it for its own sake. So, there really is no conflict in my mind in viewing a legal decision in a context outside of the Law because, at the end of the day, the Law should not be serving itself in a self-referential way. It should be reaching for The Good, and serving the people. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/193 "2005-06-24T17:01:59Z")
Article for a local perspective can be found [here](http://theday.com/eng/web/news/re.aspx?re=84E8814A-D52B-4B76-AE7A-DB2DFFAA2D76). I found this part rather interesting: > [@](#): > > “There are two things the court explicitly rejected,” said Paul, of the University of Connecticut. “The first one is that they’re not going to overturn the taking simply because it involves economic development. Economic development is a legitimate public use. **The second is that they’re not going to flyspeck a particular plan to see if the city can prove it has a precise use for each individual parcel or can prove the plans will unfold exactly as it says they will.”** (emphasis mine) Looks to me like he’s saying that if the gov’t siezes your land, and gives it a developer, who then, instead of building the office complex, decides to build a private golf course, that’s A-Ok. Given the amount of outrage I’m seeing on the various boards I go to, and commentary on NPR ("The Supreme Court has ruled that cities can take your land. "), it looks to me like this thing could get very ugly very soon. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/194 "2005-06-24T17:42:49Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I find that very confusing. You judge a legal decision outside of a legalistic context? Why? Philosophically, law is a branch of ethics. It is good, from time to time, to examine the law in the context of greater ethical considerations. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/195 "2005-06-24T18:14:23Z")
The following link it to an amicus brief that the American Planning Association filed in the Kelo case. [http://www.planning.org/amicusbriefs/kelo.htm](http://www.planning.org/amicusbriefs/kelo.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/196 "2005-06-24T18:41:31Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > The hidden assumption here is that the Court ever decides a controversial case purely on Constitutional grounds. My feeling is that most of the time, the Court uses doctrines like ‘textualism’ or ‘strict construction’ as cover for making the decisions they’d like to make anyway. Or ignores them and uses some other cover. That may be your feeling, but it’s not the reality. Textualism and strict constructionism don’t lend themselves very well to a “I’ll decide this how I want to” approach. They are limited in what they can do. “The Living Constitution,” on the other hand, leaves judges much freer to decide things however they wish to. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/197 "2005-06-24T18:47:19Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Justice O’Connor also wrote the majority opinion in Midkiff (one of the precedential cases), and, in this case, specifically rejected the original intent determination that apparently comes so easily to **Bricker** by saying: She goes on to say, almost precisely, what I said: that the majority was too deferential to the legislature. If you read her entire opinion, it’s pretty clear that her ruling has nothing to do with an out of control judiciary or an abandonment of original intent, and rather with too much deference by the judiciary to the acts of the legislative branch. Put another way: SHE AGREES WITH ME!! I didn’t mean to imply that O’Conner was writing in defense of originalism or textualism. I know she doesn’t adhere strictly to either (unless it suits here purpose 🙂 ). But you don’t have to be an originalist to be alarmed when a phrase is “interpreted” so outlandishly that it might as well not even be there anymore. I believe this to be the case here, and in the medicinal marijuana case, too. > [@](#): > > Yet more rhetorical fluff. I’ll point out, once again, that this case is not a redefinition of “public use”. It very well may be an expansion of what is required to be a “public purpose”, but it does not “alter the very wording of the constitution.” How is “deleting the words” (as per O’Conner) different in any meaningful way from “alter the very wording”? > [@](#): > > Thanks. I have nothing against you… Same here. > [@](#): > > …but I’m sick and tired of every judicial ruling that someone doesn’t like being laid at the feet of “judicial activists” or non-originalists. Well, it’s a good thing I haven’t done that, then! ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/198 "2005-06-24T19:20:57Z")
On a different massage board I like to frequent I have had to endure how liberals love this decision. Well, despite my reasoned arguments that it isn’t true I would like to be more concrete. Does anyone know of any commentary by traditionally liberal sources either for or against theis decision? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/199 "2005-06-24T20:09:55Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But you don’t have to be an originalist to be alarmed when a phrase is “interpreted” so outlandishly that it might as well not even be there anymore. I believe this to be the case here, and in the medicinal marijuana case, too. Fair enough. But who decides where reasonable interpretation ends and “outlandishness” begins? There are apparently a bunch of people who have ostensibly the same attitude to constitutional interpretation in theory, and yet who still arrive at different conclusions in different cases. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/200 "2005-06-24T21:04:30Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > I have touched on this from time to time, and, while I do not pretend to speak for **mhendo** I will at least give you my take on this. > > It is my belief that the Law is nothing more than a flawed human mechanism that is reaching for the Good. As a (I hope) morally developed human I have an internal map of the Good. So, when a criticism leveled at “you guys” a la **Bricker** because I cheer decisions that I agree with and complain about those that I do not, generally my reaction is to say “yeah? So what?” > > All that this tells me is that in some cases the Law succeeds at more closely emulating the Good, and at other times it fails. It really is a question of perspective and priority. Some people, I fear, see the Law as an end to itself and at the end of the day are happy as long as it is internally consistent, no matter the outcome. Others, myself included, see the Law as an institution that is having an ongoing dialog with the people that it should be serving, and do not value it for its own sake. So, there really is no conflict in my mind in viewing a legal decision in a context outside of the Law because, at the end of the day, the Law should not be serving itself in a self-referential way. It should be reaching for The Good, and serving the people. Very well put. I see where you’re coming from. But, I believe you are mischaracterizing those of us who take a different approach. We do beilieve that the law is meant to serve the people, and that it’s not an end in itself. But, we believe that the legislature, elected by the people, must be the source of the law if it is indeed to serve the people. If there was no mechanism other than the courts to change the law, I might agree with you. The ongoing dialogue, as you put it, goes on between the people and the elected officials who serve them. To be clear, I don’t fear a wild-eyed Supreme Court declaring Bush dictator for life, or ruling that private property in all forms is null and void. But I resent, in a “who the fuck do you think you are” kind of way, when they go outside the clear meaning of the constitution to tell us what that document means. After all, the power of judicial review is something the SC took upon itself-- it was not given that power in the constitution. We the people, will decide what “the Good” is, not the justices. They need to decide what the law is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535.md?page=11)