_Kelo_ gets it right

[Patrick Wiseman]

Hello:

	Apologies for responding "off-thread."

	Contrary to what others have been suggesting here, the _Kelo_
decision is entirely consistent with everything which precedes it.  I
don't understand at all why the earlier _Lingle_ decision did not get a
similarly hostile reaction.  The two cases, _Lingle_ and _Keno_,
essentially stand for the same thing: substantive due process == public
purpose == public use.  Justice Kennedy, in his _Kelo_ concurrence,
acknowledges that the Court finds these equivalent, but it's been evident
at least since _Midkiff_ (an opinion written by J. O'Connor) that it was
so.

	There was some confusion after _Nectow_ (J. Scalia has contributed
more to takings confusion than anyone else on the Court) whether the due
process and public use ends-means tests were different, but _Lingle_
settled that (correctly in my view) earlier this term.  It would, frankly,
have been extraordinary had the Court found that local government should
not be deferred to in its determination of what's a public purpose.  No
constitutional principle is violated by such deference.

	Whether the elected representatives who treated the New London
property owners so cavalierly should be thrown out of office is, of
course, an entirely different (political) question.

Patrick
-- 
Patrick Wiseman
Professor of Law
GSU College of Law