Justice Stevens Adds Fuel to the Fire Over the New London Eminent Domain Case

FindLaw ^ | Monday, Aug. 29, 2005 | Professor MICHAEL C. DORF

[M. Dodge Thomas]

He's kidding...right?

Depends on your definition of “efficiency”.

If you think about it a single-payer universal-coverage program is always going to be more administratively efficient than the alternatives: no marketing costs, standardized rules and paperwork, no attempt to attract or exclude given classes of participants, that sort of thing – as a result Medicare’s administrative costs are around one fifth that of a typical HMO per patient covered, and as anyone who’s had deal with both knows, from the consumer standpoint it’s usually easier to deal with Medicare’s bureaucracy than most HMO/PPOs.

It is societally more efficient?

That’s a tougher question, and a political one.

For example around 30% of Medicare expenditure occurs during the last year of life, and given the available resources much of that care, on a cost-benefit basis, is pretty difficult to defend on any rational basis of “efficiency”. And it would certainly be easier for a gate-keeping organization not directly beholden to the voters to cut off futile curative treatment and force Grandma into hospice - which is what making Medicare more "efficient" in this sense requires, than to implement Medicare regulations which did the same.

[BedRock]

"Don't blame me, he appears to be saying: I was just following the law."

Yes, and don't blame the developers who seize your property, Stvens. They're just following the law too.

(BTW, isn't that what the Nazi defendants said at the Nuremberg Trials? I'm sure it's just a coincidence.)

Very interesting...

Who said the following?

This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

[steve-b]

Everybody concedes that if the stadium will be owned by the city, then its construction constitutes a public use that will support the power of eminent domain. But, under the rule of the Kelo critics, if the city wants the stadium to be built and owned privately, then the use is no longer "public." Does that make any sense?

Yes. That's what the words "public use" MEAN.

As for the separate issue of whether government-owned stadiums are a good idea, there is a separate solution -- government need only stay out of the entire business.

Given the vocal criticism that economic libertarians (and others) have leveled against Amtrak, do they really want to advocate an interpretation of the Fifth Amendment that would lock in government ownership of railroads and other public projects facilitated by the power of eminent domain?

Yes. The effect of this requirement is to curtail eminent domain to its proper sphere (facilitating the limited range of projects which are proper functions of government).

[BedRock]

But now look what happens under the approach favored by many of the Kelo critics. Suppose that a city wants to build a sports stadium on a plot of land that includes some parcels held by owners who do not want to sell at the prevailing market price. Everybody concedes that if the stadium will be owned by the city, then its construction constitutes a public use that will support the power of eminent domain. But, under the rule of the Kelo critics, if the city wants the stadium to be built and owned privately, then the use is no longer "public." Does that make any sense?

First off, the meaning of "original intent" needs to be rediscovered by the Supremes. Secondly, if a "city wants to build a sports stadium on a plot of land that includes some parcels held by owners who do not want to sell at the prevailing market price," then it depends on how bad the city "wants" the land. Notice the usage of the word WANT, and not the word NEED. A vast difference, so if it is wanted bad enough, the city will pay what ever it is worth in the homeowners eyes, not vice-versa. The afterthought of selling to a private individual is mute. Getting past the first hurdle is a constitutional one that should be looked at with great interest and concern.

There is not one but two clauses in the Fifth Amendment concerning an American citizens property rights. Both of these were overlooked in the Kelo case.

[planekT]

So why did Justice Stevens rule for the city in Kelo? I believe it's because, in his judgment, the interpretation of the Constitution permitting redevelopment programs such as New London's is sensible,

Hate to tell you bud, but Justice Stephen's job is not deciding what is "sensible" or not, although I'd bet Stephen's agrees with you.

Did this author ask himself why many of our State Legislators immediatly reacted to restore at least some degree of protection to property owners after the Kelo decision? That it might just be because it has occurred to these politicians that the people are totally outraged that the protection given to them in the Constitution of their personal property is now totally kaput?

Kelo should have been the case to affirm the rights of Americans to own private property without having to worry about local government officials greased by private developers stealing it. I am still so sickened and angered by this I can barely type straight.

[Puddleglum]

My idea for improving the current idiocy in our judicial system involves combining term limits with the salient aspects of Shirley Jackson's story, "The Lottery."

[Savage Beast]

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

Adolf Hitler??? Diane Feinstein??? Okay, I give up.

[AmericanVictory]

People like Marion Barry think it was a good decision.

[AmericanVictory]

People like Marion Barry think it was a good decision.

[BedRock]

Adolph Hitler [1935] The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany.

[Savage Beast]

Thanks. Maybe someone should inform Diane. She doesn't seem to know.