This is the tenth anniversary of Kelo vs New London decision. A testament to the progressive contempt for private property rights and the stupid and mindless conservative demands for judicial restraint.
As for Justice John Paul Stevens (who wrote the majority opinion), he remains unrepentant about his central role in the Kelo debacle. In fact, in a 2011 speech, Stevens lashed out at several of his critics, arguing that Kelo remains perfectly justifiable because it “adhered to the doctrine of judicial restraint” and was rooted in “Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ broad reading of the text of the Constitution—which allows the states the same broad discretion in making takings decisions that they possess when engaging in other forms of economic regulation.”
But why should the Supreme Court adhere to Justice Holmes’ distructive interpretation? Why not just follow the actual text of the Constitution? After all, Holmes is the same justice who once wrote, “a law should be called good if it reflects the will of the dominant forces of the community, even if it will take us to hell.”
Of course 80% of the population disagreed with the court’s decision… I guess they just aren’t the dominant forces Holmes was talking about. Perhaps the general population isn’t at all what the string pullers of progressivism care ultimately about …. I could only dream of setting up a ‘better use’ business that would put Justice Stevens on the street…(and actually seeing it happen)
Interestingly he blasted Roberts over the Citizens United ruling by saying : “The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate,” he said. “It’s really wrong.” …. While somehow finding that it is alright for the state to remove someone from their home and deliver it up to some other citizen (or well financed individual) who promises to deliver more taxes to the state … thus qualifying the state seizure as being ‘public use’.