(no title)
baruz
|
9 months ago
I remember that decision and am still indignant about it. Why should the government give private land to a different private party? If the government is going to take it for public use, I can see the reasoning, but using eminent domain to transfer to private owners is fraught.
alabastervlog|9 months ago
Not that those are rare.
[EDIT] To make this a little more substantive, on an issue where they extremely plausibly could have decided otherwise, they elected to go for the option that is plainly, guaranteed to be less-just. There is no universe in which anyone with a brain could believe the overwhelming result of this decision wouldn't be to benefit people with power and money at the expense of those without power and money.
RajT88|9 months ago
Subjective decisions are bad, like we're seeing in other areas. "General benefits" can mean anything if you've got cooperative judges you crammed the courts with.
> Not that those are rare.
Heller comes to mind, even as a 2a supporter.
detourdog|9 months ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
unknown|9 months ago
[deleted]