The Month Ahead: Spies, Lies, Russia, and Terrorist Watchlists

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Brett Bellmore says:

    “For example, in Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court categorically rejected the idea that the state may take property under the pretext of a public purpose.”

    Excuse me, but New London won that case… I think you’ve characterized the case exactly backwards; It’s more like the Court categorically rejected the idea of ever admitting that ‘public purpose’ was pretextual.

  2. Ken Rhodes says:

    No, Brett, Professor Kahn got it right.

    The Supreme Court, in its majority opinion, “categorically rejected …” Here is the sentence from the opinion delivered by Justice Stevens:

    “Nor would the City be allowed to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit.”

    The opinion went on to state, in the rest of that paragraph, that the instant case was NOT a “pretext” since the public purpose was a “carefully considered development plan. The trial judge and all the members of the Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed that there was no evidence of an illegitimate purpose in this case.”

  3. fresno dan says:

    Well I guess the arguement centers around the word “pretext” (or for clarity, let’s use the word “lying”)that is, was the city lying when they said the taking was for a public purpose?
    It gets more convoluted – I would say the city sincerely believed that PRIVATE development would add the PUBLIV coffers. Unfortunately, turns out real estate investing isn’t always profitable to the public or the private sector.
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/11/10/pfizer-leaving-new-london-ct-just-dont-mention-kelo-while-reporting-it