Justice John Paul Stevens is retiring after a long and distinguished career with many applaudable decisions. But, before we all start to tear up, Lexington reminds us about his opinion in Kelo v New London…
Rufus F.
Rufus is a likeable curmudgeon. He has a PhD in History, sang for a decade in a punk band, and recently moved to NYC after nearly two decades in Canada. He wrote the book "The Paris Bureau" from Dio Press (2021).
Devcat is watching over, but if you notice any problems contact the editors and Devcat will be notified and deployed immediately.
on Weekend Plans Post: On a Plane to IcelandHrm. I always felt like the experience was an epiphenomenon of the deeper quest for a dinner jacket… on Weekend Plans Post: On a Plane to IcelandYou did good.
on Weekend Plans Post: On a Plane to IcelandIt's more of an 'experience'. The old way was a sales-guy talking about the fabric/color/style and t…
on Paper: Inflation and the 2024 US Presidential ElectionEdward Bennett Williams, probably the greatest trial lawyer of the generation before mine, said that… on Weekend Plans Post: On a Plane to IcelandWe have seen the lava. My buddy's eyes are better than mine, he claims to have seen the spouts from… on Weekend Plans Post: On a Plane to IcelandThe last time I got a sport coat ("It's not a blazer, sir"), I was blessed to have a chubby tailor e… on Open Mic for the week of 11/18/2024Withdrawing from the treaty wouldn't prohibit other countries from taking actions; the treaty is sel… on Weekend Plans Post: On a Plane to IcelandYeah, it turns out that the dark green suit I was interested in was 'last year's' style and all they…
on Open Mic for the week of 11/18/2024I am relatively hawkish on Ukraine since they proved their willingness to fight for their independen… on ICC Follows Through on Arrest Warrants for Israeli PM Netanyahu & OthersOn the government, no... I'm more wondering about the citizens.
November 23, 2024
November 22, 2024
November 21, 2024
November 20, 2024
on Open Mic for the week of 11/18/2024 on Paper: Inflation and the 2024 US Presidential Election on ICC Follows Through on Arrest Warrants for Israeli PM Netanyahu & Others
on ICC Follows Through on Arrest Warrants for Israeli PM Netanyahu & Others on ICC Follows Through on Arrest Warrants for Israeli PM Netanyahu & Others
on Weekend Plans Post: On a Plane to Iceland on Weekend Plans Post: On a Plane to Iceland
on Weekend Plans Post: On a Plane to Iceland
on Open Mic for the week of 11/18/2024 on ICC Follows Through on Arrest Warrants for Israeli PM Netanyahu & Others
on All the President’s Nominees: The Legion of Groom
on Paper: Inflation and the 2024 US Presidential Election on Open Mic for the week of 11/18/2024 on ICC Follows Through on Arrest Warrants for Israeli PM Netanyahu & Others
on The Mandate That Wasn’t
Kelo, sadly isn’t Stevens’ only bad opinion.Report
Texas v. Johnson.
Google it and be amazed that he was on the wrong side of it. It sets the stage for him being wrong on all sorts of cases, Kelo, the McCain-Feingold cases… they all come into focus.Report
There is a difference between saying something like what happened in Kelo is bad and saying its unconstitutional. Stevens and the majority stuck with precedent, really. You may have thought you knew what the Takings Clause meant because you read the 5th Amendment in civics class, but the Court has consistently let democratic bodies define what public use means. If you wanted the court to enshrine a meaning the Constitution (“public use means roads” or something like that), then you’d need to overturn some pretty strong precedent (See Midikiff v. Hawaii Housing Authority and Berman v. Parker). The liberal view of Constitutional law is fundamentally about respecting the decisions about other branches of government when it comes to matters of economics, because while the rights of some cannot be democratically protected (eg criminal rights), the rights of property owners certain ly can be. (See e.g., John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust). In Kelo, Stevens recognized that a locally accountable democratic body had authorized the taking. If you don’t like it, elect someone new. And thats what people all over the country did. But the Court rightfully rejected the opportunity to enshrine in the Constitution a bright line rule for how you define an ambiguous word like “public use”, rather than letting a democratic, publicly available body define it. Everyone agrees that you follow the constitution (most do, at least), but the question is WHO gets to decide what the constitution means. You may disagree with what the phrase “public use” means, but Stevens position is not implausible (economic development has public benefits, ergo it could be a public use). And if its not implausible, if the text will bear it, its rather inappropriate for a set of unelected judges to decide what the term means. Stevens, whether in Raich or Kelo or any of his other decisions, was consistent in respecting the democratically accountable opinions of other government bodies. Thats something to recognize and respect, even if you disagree with outcomes.Report
@D,
Do you agree with the outcome in the Griswold line of cases?Report
One more thing: Lexington cites the democratic revulsion at Kelo and all the subsequent laws that were enacted as proof that the decision was wrong. Thats backwards: its proof that the decision was exactly right. Stevens didn’t say “public use” has to mean “economic development”, he said its plausible to say that. Its a democractic decision, and the Court let democracy make that decision. Kelo is an example of representation reinforcement in action.
Another good example of this is Zurcher v. Stanford Daily: the case said newspaper sources could be subpoenaed by the government in a criminal investigation. OUTRAGE!!! People who like the First Amendment were disgusted. But guess what? If anybody can protect their rights in a democracy, its newspapers. And so the newspapers got a law passed in Congress outlawing the problems.Report
Kelo is an example of representation reinforcement in action.
A great example of why I find representation reinforement action to be an obnoxious and wholly illegitimate method of constitutional interpretation.
Justice Stevens had problems with the plain meaning of constitutional text, and frankly, I could care less what democratic majorities think if it offends the text of the Constitution. Justice Jackson took the same approach in West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette:
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.Report
@Dave, Amen.Report
Ah yes…when in doubt argue by conclusion. No one disagrees with Jackson’s quote. But you can’t just assert that “plain meaning” and claim victory and expect me (or 5 justices) to agree. What does “liberty” mean? What does “public use” mean? Who decides? Why?
In the original link put up by Rufus, Lexington made the point that Kelo did not involve “blighted” property. I take that point to me that Lexington agreed that Berman was rightly decided (public use=slum clearance). Why is that a public use and not Kelo? If you think Berman was wrong, what about a eminent domain for utilities? You say “public use” has a plain meaning, but its obviously arguable. You can have an opinion about that argument, but that doesn’t mean someone can’t, in good faith disagree. And if we can disagree about the precise application of phrases written by old white men 200 years ago , how are we to know when “liberty” is violated? Who decides?Report
@d, Watch out, D.
That sort of argument will have you defending waterboarding of terrorists, seizure of vehicles and homes of people not convicted of crimes, and sodomy laws if you’re not careful…Report