The Supreme Court is full of shit, the sequel: eminent domain

I stand amazed at the apparent idiocy of the Supreme Court justices (Stevens, Souder, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kennedy -- egads, can it be that I agreed with Scalia, and Thomas?) who ruled in favor of public seizure of private land for private development. Remember, if the Constitution don't say it, gov't can't do it. I even forgot about Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." -- so if the Constitution don't say it, the states can't do it either.

So with that in mind, this is what the Constitution says about private property seizures: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (Amendment 5). Note what it doesn't mention is seizure for private use. And make no mistake: the final product of this seizure is private use. Public use is use beneficial on an equal basis to all members of the the public (although I recognize that employees of a public-use facility get salaries, they also work for those salaries, so don't give me the "not everybody can get a job" crap). A hotel is private use; an apartment complex is private use; a department store is private use: each of these is owned by one or a group of private citizens who receive profit from payments for use of the property, while the rest of the public must be satisfied with whatever services that may or may not be benefit from increased funding from the marginal increase in the tax base.

I dispute also Stevens' assertion that economic development is a fundamental function of government. There is a difference between paving a road and putting up streetlights, and even granting tax breaks, and kicking someone off his property and giving that property to someone who makes more money. That's what this is, after all.

And (dare I say it?) bravo to Thomas for his separate dissent. I have to admit that I'm more outraged by this case than by the eviction of poor folk from their condemned apartments in the name of urban development, and it is constructive that Thomas disputes Stevens approval and emulation of urban development in D.C. or Utah's pro-mining, anti-settler laws of 1906. To grant any benefit to private individuals for land seizures is wrong, and we have to watch even who is granted the contract to construct public-use facilities on seized as well as unseized lands.

This, James Dobson and your ilk, Tom Delay and your ilk, is judicial activism: granting rights to governments that they do not and indeed should not have. A grudging hail to Scalia and Thomas. And impeachment for Stevens, Souder, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kennedy -- as long as we maintain a 60-vote cloture rule.