Yet more on Eminent Domain

I read no dumb bloggers but these guys have got to be amongst the most astute: Urban Cartography on Eminent Domain.

Btw, in a response to a comment left by Atrios I conceded to him a tactical point. In reconsideration, that was error. (Go and read my post which attacks Eschaton.)

Purely from a tactical perspective, it seems to me that even if the good guys had joined the basically-bad guys (i.e. the Republicans) in a majority opinion, and Rehnquist has been able to assign the opinion, the good guys would still have been able to exert enormous sway because they could have left the majority at any time. Thus the opinion would have as a practical matter reprsented liberal interests which would allow --though to a more nuanced degree -- public intervention. As it is, this decision is going to precipitate a response on par with the Massachuesetts decision on gay marriage though without the moral basis on the side of the majority decision.

Comments

[JRoth]

One thing I don't understand about your frustration (anger? certainly seems that way RE Atrios) on this ruling is that it is NOT a change in precendent. Neither in legal nor in practical terms does this change what local gov'ts do. We all know that cases more or less identical to this one have occurred across the country, for decades. The idea that the transfer to another private entity is somehow outrageous smacks of being shocked, shocked at gambling at Rick's.

If it's been going on, then this ruling is a disappointment to those who hoped to change the law, but nothing more. It seems like being infuriated that, I dunno, the speed limit didn't change when the state assembly considered it. Not in the sense that the two are of equal importance, but in the sense that it's simply a continuation of status quo ante. Big deal.

Also, I think that you're very naive to imagine that the goals of the Institute for Justice, Rehnquisdt, Scalia, et al., have anything to do with protecting small property owners, as opposed to exempting large property owners from gov't regulation. The libertarians/far right have hung much of their antiregulatory strategy over the last 30 years on unmitigated BS about "takings." Even a narrowly-written limitation on constitutionally-granted gov't power in Kelo will be multiplied dozens of times in the Circuits (which are, you may or may not know, 80% conservative-dominated). And the next time it comes before the Supreme Court, Kennedy may not hold that magic vote that lets him write the decision you'd want.

One other thing - your analogy to the gay marriage decision is, frankly, laughable. Every homophobe in America fancies himself somehow slighted by gay marriage existing anywhere in the US. I don't know why, but it's clearly true - November proved this. I would be stunned if there's more than 100,000 people (out of 300 million) who will fear for their property more tonight than they did last Sunday night. As awful (both senses) a power as eminent domain is, it is rarely, rarely used - for the reasons you've put forth. It's _hard_ to use, and can cost politicians their jobs. There are checks and balances in place against its use. Don't fret over it so much. Worry more about the 3 million dubious roadside searches that citizens are subjected to every year.