This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism—June 23

Policy

(AlenaMozhjer/Getty Images)

2005—In an act of judicial passivism, a five-justice majority, in an opinion by Justice Stevens, rules in Kelo v. City of New London that the City of New London satisfies the “public use” requirement of the Takings Clause when it takes private property from homeowners in order to transfer it to another private owner as part of an economic redevelopment plan. The majority correctly observes that its diluted reading of “public use” to mean “public purpose” accords with precedent, but its bare assertion that a genuine “public use” test “proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society” shows how unreliable the “living Constitution” is as a guarantor of rights not favored by the elites from which the Court’s members are drawn.

It’s hardly a surprise that justices who willy-nilly invent rights that aren’t in the Constitution ignore rights that are.

Articles You May Like

Herschel Walker knocks woke athletes protesting at the Olympics: ‘If people don’t like the rules, why are you here?’
A dream 52 years in the making: Amazon founder ready to blast off into space
The Incredible Lightness of Ibram X. Kendi’s ‘Anti-Racism’
Trump on Cleveland Indians Name Change: ‘At Some Point, the People Will Not Take it Anymore!’
Lost Cause Monuments as Public Miseducation: Why the Robert E. Lee Statue in Richmond Should Go

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *