Blogroll

• Above the Law
  
• Althouse
  
• Bag and Baggage
  
• Dennis Kennedy
  
• Ernie the Attorney
  
• Patent Baristas
  
• Patently-O
  
• PrawfsBlawg
• Professor Bainbridge
  
• SCOTUSblog
  
• Volokh Conspiracy
  
• The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog
  

« Crummy HR policies are the employer's fault | Main | What pin-striped gloating looks like: Boardrooms vs. Milberg Weiss »

Week in review: Law.com bloggers ignite nearly unite on Kelo v. New London

The Supremes' interpretation of the Fifth Amendment in Kelo v. New London has had an inflammatory effect on bloggers in the past few days -- and not a few political action groups (hence The Castle Coalition's graphic).  See Tony Mauro's report on Thursday's 5-4 ruling here.

Many a Law.com-affiliated blogger has weighed in.  In Eugene Volokh's opinion, the core debate "is over whether the "public use" requirement of the Takings Clause means (1) "the taken property must be owned by the government, or sold by the government to a common carrier that has the legal obligation to serve everyone" or (2) "the taken property must be used by the government as a means of benefiting the public, even if the government benefits the public by selling the property to a private property owner."

Few Law.com bloggers are as calm when they discuss the decision. "Whose Constitution is it anyway?" asks J. Craig Williams in a post titled, "Eminent Domain Means Never Having To Say Your Sorry As Long As It's A *Public* Benefit." VC co-conspirator Todd Zywicki is so "wound up" that he shares subject lines he wrote and tossed as too over the top, including this gem: "Wal-Mart Celebrates: Now Wal-Mart need not lobby for huge development and tax subsidies for its new stores, it can just get the government to take the land it wants ... " I kinda like it.

Over on Crime & Federalism, Timothy Sandefur takes a slightly less aggrieved perspective. He writes, "Kelo is, obviously, a deplorable example of what happens when we start tinkering with property rights to begin with. ... That being said, there is room for optimism. Kelo really does little that Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), did not already do..."

Here's a roundup:

The Volokh Conspiracy

1. Somin on Kelo and Original Understanding:
2. More on Kelo:
3. Institute for Justice and the Castle Coalition:
4. "The Great Equalizer"
5. Kelo Topic Page
6. Perspectives on Kelo
7. Kelo
8. Kelo Discussion at SCOTUSblog
9. Kelo Opinions
10. Takings and Privatization
11. Big Government for Its Own Sake

Crime & Federalism

1. Looking on the bright side of Kelo
2. Kelo and its Progeny
3. The key in Kelo
4. The Kelo decision, or, does property mean anything anymore?

May It Please The Court

Eminent Domain Means Never Having To Say Your Sorry As Long As It's A *Public* Benefit

Posted by Product Team on June 24, 2005 at 06:38 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (1)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cce2453ef00d83459b6ad69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Week in review: Law.com bloggers ignite nearly unite on Kelo v. New London:

» Law.com Blawgers on Kelo v. New London from InhouseBlog - News for Inhouse Counsel
The Supreme Court's eminent domain decision in Kelo v. New London will have an impact for on economic development for years to come. [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 27, 2005 12:18:59 AM