My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

« Debating the Legality of the NSA Warrantless Surveillance Program | Main | Two (or Three) More Myths About Hamdan »

July 14, 2006



I agree that Thomas' dissent in Kelo represents a disingenuous invocation of race, only used to support his "originalist" reading of the takings clause. Furthermore, if Mr. Justice Thomas' inspiration in his legal reasoning was actually social inequality and the disparate impact of government policy on poor, black/minority communities he would not only be obligated to support a reading of the takings clause in which legislatures are more empowered to take and use private property for public purposes that serve those communities (adequate low-income housing, for example), but he should also have proposed a policy of strict judicial scrutiny to ensure that the purposes for which legislatures seize private property are actually public.

I especially agree with Prof. Jordan's point number 6.

The comments to this entry are closed.