Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, it doesn't. First, Kennedy's concurrence makes pretty clear that majority rule is not always fine. Second, the public/private distinction doesn't have much to do with this majority rule idea.
|
Those one-justice concurrences may provide succor to some, but in the long run they tend to matter less and less, and one side wins out.
The majority rule issue certainly does. As I made the point weeks ago, and again today, ensuring a public use places real limits on what can be taken, because it actually requires payment by the government and, thus, the citizens. If the government simply becomes a broker to facilitate (i.e., coerce) trades between the less fortunate and the ravenous developer, there are no limits to what could happen. And as long as a majority of people are confident their property won't be taken in that way, it can continue.
Then again, maybe counter-majoritarian values aren't so cool. Ask the christians.
