Searching for Alex Kozinski

The controversial 9th Circuit judge on free speech, privacy, and why he didn't mind the Kelo decision

Shikha Dalmia from the July 2006 issue

(Page 5 of 6)

Kozinski: I was really surprised by all the uproar over Kelo. I just can’t imagine how it could have come out any other way.

Reason: You don’t see a problem with government dispossessing people—

Kozinski: They were paid for it. They were not dispossessed.

Reason: But they didn’t want to be moved. They didn’t want to be paid off. You don’t see a problem with government taking away private property, not for a public use like building roads, but for other private uses?

Kozinski: What’s the difference between taking property for public roads or anything else? Do only public automobiles travel on public roads? I don’t understand why it’s a problem. If the government thinks the city will benefit by having a road there instead of having your house so that people can drive their private cars on it, then it has to make that decision. Who owns the road really doesn’t matter. What matters is that it makes it easier for other people to get from point A to point B using their private vehicles for private purposes. You could say “but it’s my house and my private purpose is more important than your private purpose.” But we live in a society.

When you have people living in such close proximity, someone has to decide the question of whether you get to use your house for your purposes or whether other people use it to drive to work or other people use it to run a business, and it is not completely up to you. You are objecting to Kelo because property was taken for privately owned businesses. But the businesses provide services to lots of people. So if the city thinks there should be a private business instead of a private house, it has to make that decision. If you want to decide on your own, you can go live in a forest.

Reason: And you’re comfortable with government making the decisions in the way that it does?

Kozinski: I don’t see who else could make them. Would you rather have courts make those decisions? The Constitution clearly says that the government can use its eminent domain power to take away property.

Reason: Is there any limit to when and how the government can take property?

Kozinski: It has to pay for it. And it has to go through the normal process of government to make a decision and follow the due process.

Reason: Another controversial ruling by the Supreme Court in the last year was in the Raich case. The court overruled California’s law permitting the use of marijuana for medical purposes, reversing your court. What do you think of that?

Kozinski: I was surprised by it. More than that, I was disappointed by it.

The Court has certainly decided that the federal government’s power under the Commerce Clause is very broad. It’s probably inevitable because it is very difficult to limit this power.

Reason: With Raich, the Supreme Court seemed to go back on the precedent it established in United States v. Lopez, when it ruled that the federal  government could not regulate possession of guns in a school under the Commerce Clause.

Kozinski: I think what they’ve basically said is if it’s a commercial enterprise then government can control it. Lopez was not a commercial situation since it was just about possession.

Comments

Pingback| 2.25.10 @ 8:27AM

Militant Libertarian » Judge Alex Kozinski: The Fourth Amendment is Gone. “Welcome to links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…of the sanctity and privacy of what Americans consider their castles is pretty much complete. Welcome to the fish bowl. Read the  whole thing here (.pdf). In our July 2006 issue, Shikha Dalmia  interviewed Judge Kozinski about free speech, privacy, libertarianism, and more. Auto-Generated Related posts (probability): Judge Andrew Napolitano on The Alex Jones Show: False Flag Event To Save Obama’s Presidency Alex…

Pingback| 2.25.10 @ 10:17AM

Judge Alex Kozinski: The Fourth Amendment is Gone. “Welcome to the fish bowl.” links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…of the sanctity and privacy of what Americans consider their castles is pretty much complete. Welcome to the fish bowl. Read the whole thing here (.pdf). In our July 2006 issue, Shikha Dalmia interviewed Judge Kozinski about free speech, privacy, libertarianism, and more. via Judge Alex Kozinski: The Fourth Amendment is Gone. “Welcome to the fish bowl.” – Hit & Run : Reason Magazine.…

Pingback| 2.25.10 @ 12:26PM

Judge Alex Kozinski: The Fourth Amendment is Gone. "Welcome to the fish bowl." | The links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…of the sanctity and privacy of what Americans consider their castles is pretty much complete. Welcome to the fish bowl. Read the whole thing here (.pdf). In our July 2006 issue, Shikha Dalmia interviewed Judge Kozinski about free speech, privacy, libertarianism, and more. (Via PogoWasRight) http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/23/judge-alex-kozinski-the-fourth Easy AdSense by Unreal Bookmark It Hide Sites Tags: 9th…

Pingback| 2.27.10 @ 5:16PM

FreeWestRadio.com » Blog Archive » Judge Alex Kozinski: The Fourth Amendment is Gone. links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…of the sanctity and privacy of what Americans consider their castles is pretty much complete. Welcome to the fish bowl. Read the  whole thing here (.pdf). In our July 2006 issue, Shikha Dalmia  interviewed Judge Kozinski about free speech, privacy, libertarianism, and more. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting! This entry was posted by Administrator on February 27,…

nfl jerseys|11.7.10 @ 8:20PM|#

nrth

log in or register to reply

SheepskinUGG boots|11.20.10 @ 6:22AM|#

Adjustment is added to complete the assembly of Australia is now doubtful of Ugg Sheepskin Boots affidavit, collect, abundant added the two peak ragweed flexible environment to acclimate against amoebic in magic, Duke addition,Ugg Boots Online Store the added

log in or register to reply