<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bottomMargin=0 leftMargin=3 rightMargin=3 topMargin=0>
<DIV>Was anyone here disappointed by the Supreme Court decision about eminent
domain -- the one where they took three private homes to make way for a
commercial development, that happened to be a package put together by the city
for "redevelopment"? I just noticed a NY Times article about a speech by Justice
Stevens saying the decision was "unwise." Here is a short excerpt, and a link to
the full article.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Siarlys</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff8040>In one, the eminent domain case that became the term's
most controversial decision, he said that his majority opinion that upheld the
government's "taking" of private homes for a commercial development in New
London, Conn., brought about a result "entirely divorced from my judgment
concerning the wisdom of the program" that was under constitutional
attack.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff8040>His own view, Justice Stevens told the Clark County Bar
Association, was that "the free play of market forces is more likely to produce
acceptable results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public
officials." But he said that the planned development fit the definition of
"public use" that, in his view, the Constitution permitted for the exercise of
eminent domain.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff8040>Justice Stevens said he also regretted having to rule
in favor of the federal government's ability to enforce its narcotics laws and
thus trump California's medical marijuana initiative. "I have no hesitation in
telling you that I agree with the policy choice made by the millions of
California voters," he said. But given the broader stakes for the power of
Congress to regulate commerce, he added, "our duty to uphold the application of
the federal statute was pellucidly clear."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/politics/25memo.html?th&emc=th">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/politics/25memo.html?th&emc=th</A><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Personally, I think both decisions were wrong. The legal arguments are
narrow, but they could have swung the other way without doing major damage to
other principles people rely on. There was a time when courts ruled that
government could use eminent domain for its own purposes, but had no business
subsidizing private businesses merely because they might have a good impact on
the local community. That view was displaced in the late 19th century by
elements in the Republican Party that wanted more government partnership with
business development. At the time, most of the people who objected were
Democrats, and their political descendants are now mostly Republicans.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As to the medical marijuana initiative, one thing I appreciate about
Rehnquist and Scalia is their efforts to scale back how much Congress can do in
the name of "regulating interstate commerce." I wish they had taken the bull by
the horns on this case. There is no interstate commerce in producing small
quantities of marijuana for medically-prescribed personal use. Congress isn't
trying to foster an interstate market, it is trying to suppress an interstate
market. It makes a difference in how regulatory powers apply.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But anyway, I was interested to see a Supreme Court justice flatly say, I
didn't personally approve of the way these cases turned out.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Siarlys</DIV></BODY></HTML>