# Supremes keep smackin' around the Ninth Circuit

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supremes-keep-smackin-around-the-ninth-circuit/573241>\
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\
**Created:** [March 2, 2011, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supremes-keep-smackin-around-the-ninth-circuit/573241 "2011-03-02T18:35:25Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\
**Post date:** [March 6, 2011, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supremes-keep-smackin-around-the-ninth-circuit/573241/21 "2011-03-06T06:22:16Z")

</div>

> [@Stratocaster](#):
>
> Or _Kelo v. the City of New London_, in which SCOTUS determined that the phrase “for public use” actually meant “not necessarily for public use.” Another flouting of a duly ratified piece of legislation.

I thought that in Kelo, SCOTUS upheld the duly ratified piece of legislation, allowing the state aciton to go ahead, as not bing in violation of the takings clause?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\
**Post date:** [March 6, 2011, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supremes-keep-smackin-around-the-ninth-circuit/573241/22 "2011-03-06T12:26:28Z")

</div>

> [@Northern\_Piper](#):
>
> I thought that in Kelo, SCOTUS upheld the duly ratified piece of legislation, allowing the state aciton to go ahead, as not bing in violation of the takings clause?

Yep, the duly ratified piece of legislation I referred to was the U.S. Constitution.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supremes-keep-smackin-around-the-ninth-circuit/573241.md?page=1)