Justice Antonin Scalia: “I do not think that the Kelo opinion is long for this world.”

The Volokh Conspiracy’s Ilya Somin flags some very notable comments made by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia over the weekend. Here’s the original story as reported by the Chicago Sun-Times:

Scalia was in town for a conference on judicial “takings” — the issue of whether and when the government can confiscate private property. Scalia predicted the court’s 2005 “Kelo” decision saying local governments can take take property from one owner to give to a developer will be reversed someday.

“I do not think that the Kelo opinion is long for this world,” Scalia said. “My court has, by my lights, made many mistakes of law during its distinguished two centuries of existence. But it has made very few mistakes of political judgment, of estimating how far ... it could stretch beyond the text of the constitution without provoking overwhelming public criticism and resistance. Dred Scott was one mistake of that sort. Roe v Wade was another ... And Kelo, I think, was a third.”

Scalia dissented in the notorious eminent domain case, so it’s no surprise to find him criticizing the majority's decision. But does that mean Kelo’s days are actually numbered? Keep in mind that the Supreme Court has had several choice opportunities to correct its Kelo mistake, most recently when property owner Nick Sprayregen asked the justices last year to put a stop to New York's use of eminent domain on behalf of Columbia University, which wanted to bulldoze Sprayregen's West Harlem businesses to make way for a new stretch of campus. It would have taken four votes for the Supreme Court to agree to hear Sprayregen’s appeal, but the final count came up short. Perhaps Scalia can do a better job of persuading three or more of his colleagues when the next eminent domain case reaches 1 First Street.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Juice||

    Well, Roe v. Wade is going nowhere soon, so I don't see why he thinks Kelo will be overturned in the near future.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    He said Roe was one of the Court's rare "mistakes of political judgment, of estimating how far ... it could stretch beyond the text of the constitution without provoking overwhelming public criticism and resistance."

    Roe stretched beyond the text of the Constitution and it provoked overwhelming public criticism and resistance. That criticism and resistance was actually a key reason why some of the Justices upheld Roe in 1992. "If we pull out now, we'll look weak - as if we responded to public outrage at our lawless behavior!"

  • o3||

    course that "outrage" over roe would simply return to the states because...some will & some wont.

  • Juice||

    Actually, I don't think Roe v. Wade stretched beyond the constitution, 9th amendment and all.

  • Juice||

    Actually, I don't think Roe v. Wade stretched beyond the constitution, 9th amendment and all.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    The question long has been what rights does the 9th Amendment protect. It's almost really a truism - i.e., "just because we've set forth a few specific rights here doesn't mean those are all we have." O.K., great - so what are the other ones you haven't listed? And keep in mind we're talking here about rights protected against government infringement.

    An awful lot of law review ink has been spilled on this question. Recall that Robert Bork stated that it was fruitless for the SCOTUS to try to interpret the 9th Amendment, because there's no way to really know what the Framers meant or had in mind. He said it might as well be text that was obscured by an ink blot. Since there was no way to tell what words were under the ink blot, it would be wrong to try to read any meaning into it. So he seems to advocate simply ignoring it as meaningless.

    So what are the "other" rights protected by the 9th?

    That is where the Court gets into its analyses of rights "traditionally understood as inhering in a well-ordered liberty", etc.

    By the way, as I recall (haven't read it in a long time), Roe v. Wade didn't rely on the 9th Amendment, did it?

  • Juice||

    Recall that Robert Bork stated that it was fruitless for the SCOTUS to try to interpret the 9th Amendment, because there's no way to really know what the Framers meant or had in mind.

    It's obvious what the framers meant. Make it up as you go along. Figure it out for yourselves.

    Oh, and Robert Bork? Seriously?

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Yeah, seriously - I was merely reporting Bork's comment. So?

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    And it's nice to know you've managed to do what hundreds of constitutional scholars, lawyers and judges have not - determine the "obvious" meaning of the 9th Amendment. Good for you!

  • ||

    Dred Scott was one mistake of that sort. Roe v Wade was another ... And Kelo, I think, was a third.”

    Umm, what about Wickard v. Filburn, Justice Scalia? So many of the bastard children decisions expanding government power stem from this very decision.

    What kind of compelling case would it take to overturn the decision? And I honestly think the impending ObamneyCare decision will not be that case.

    Chief Justice Roberts majority opinion on Kelo was a blatant misreading of the Constitution and I personally suspect that he, not Kennedy, is the one of to be wary.

  • AZ||

    Damn you Groovus! Beaten, and with actual discussion and analysis.

  • tarran||

    ^^^^^^THIS!!!!!!!

    Oh, and his sophistry in Heller, which if it had been applied from the get-go would have limited the non-government-officials in the citizenry to flintlock pistols.

  • ||

    Wickard wasn't a "political" mistake that incites widespread popular opposition, so it doesn't fit with the others.

  • Raston Bot||

    Chief Justice Roberts majority opinion on Kelo

    you mean Rehnquist, right?

  • ||

    Thanks Raston, I meant to write JP Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion in 2005.

    Rehnquist joined with O'Connor in the dissenting opinion.

  • ||

    "Starting with McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall gave a very broad and expansive reading to the powers of the Federal Government and explained generally that if the ends be legitimate, then any means chosen to achieve them are within the power of the Federal Government, and cases interpreting that, throughout the years, have come down. Certainly, by the time Lopez was decided, many of us had learned in law school that it was just sort of a formality to say that interstate commerce was affected and that cases weren't going to be thrown out that way. Lopez certainly breathed new life into the Commerce Clause.

    "I think it remains to be seen, in subsequent decisions, how rigorous a showing, and in many cases, it is just a showing. It's not a question of an abstract fact, does this affect interstate commerce or not, but has this body, the Congress, demonstrated the impact on interstate commerce that drove them to legislate? That's a very important factor. It wasn't present in Lopez at all. I think the members of Congress had heard the same thing I had heard in law school, that this is unimportant — and they hadn't gone through the process of establishing a record in that case."[18]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts

    Citizen's United notwithstanding, I don't hold out great hope for his opinion. (emphasis mine)

  • AZ||

    Would've been way better if he called out Wickard.

  • ||

    of estimating how far...it could stretch beyond the text of the constitution without provoking overwhelming public criticism and resistance

    WTF?!? Did he just admit that the Supreme Court reaches decisions not based on law and precedent, but on politics? That it actively and knowingly stretches the text of the Constitution, presumably in the government's favor?

    Did someone put him under a truthoscope?

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Sort of yes, sort of no. There is a presumption against state action being unconstitutional, so if the legislature/Congress "stretches" the Constitution, the Supreme Court is (by its own jurisprudence) bound to try to "stretch" with the legislature. Justice Thomas, to his credit, thinks this is a bunch of crap.

  • Dr. K||

    There is a presumption against state action being unconstitutional

    Indeed. However, this presumption of constitutionality was created whole cloth (Screw You, Brandeis!) so that the supreme court could try to "stretch with the legislature". Saying that they have to stretch with the legislature because of the presumption of constitutionality is begging the question.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I wouldn't even mind a standard of review that is pointedly neutral, but the deference has certainly gotten out of hand.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I am not endorsing it, but the hangover of common law is that stare decisis matters.

  • Dr. K||

    Stare decisis just means when all else is equal, keep the status quo. It does not render the past inerrant. It is not incompatible with a standard of review that treats skeptically government claims of constitutionality.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I would be overjoyed if we implemented a neutral standard of review, rather than the hyperdeference we have going on right now.

  • ||

    Whether stare decisis matters is a separate issue from the correctitude of the precedent at hand.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon ||

    How do you separate them?

  • ||

    With an obsidian scalpel.

    Seriously, from a jurisprudential point of view, stare decisis is based on the principle that predictability and reliability have value in the law. That value may override the desire to tweak a precedent a little, or even to override a precedent that's only a little wrong.

    So you can say "I wouldn't have decided the precedent that way, but I'm going to follow it anyway to preserve predictability and reliability."

    I think the current Court has gone way too far in that direction, myself.

  • tarran||

    It's an insight into the emotional way Scalia does jurisprudence;

    1) start with what emotionally pleases you
    2) construct rationalizing arguments as to why (1) is logically true based on past constitutional law
    3) manufacture facts (ie "New Professionalism of Police") to buttress your arguments in (2)
    4) accuse people who disagree with you of being stupid hippies/liberals.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon ||

    This is an accurate description of how Scalia does jurisprudence.

    It is also a description of how most other Justices and judges do jurisprudence.

    That said, I do not think Scalia is wrong in his description here.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    So I guess you really haven't read a whole lot of his opinions, then.

    And I certainly hope that, if you truly believe that is how Scalia operates, you're not implying that the more liberal justices make their opinions objectively and solely on "the law"?

  • tarran||

    And I certainly hope that, if you truly believe that is how Scalia operates, you're not implying that the more liberal justices make their opinions objectively and solely on "the law"?

    Hah! I implied no such thing. None of them are worth a tinker's cuss as far as I'm concerned.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't have high expectations, every one of those people was hired by a U.S. president after all.

  • ||

    It's ultimately how every judge does jurisprudence.

    To a degree it's actually good, in the sense that often the good guy gets his path smoothed for him, while the bad guy keeps finding out that the judge dynamited the tunnel.

    But anyway, anybody who has been through a Constitutional Law class that doesn't realize the Supremes pretty regularly apply bend and twist the text to get to what they consider the common sense result should have failed the class.

  • tarran||

    To a degree it's actually good, in the sense that often the good guy gets his path smoothed for him, while the bad guy keeps finding out that the judge dynamited the tunnel.

    It is not good, because sometimes good people are mistaken to be bad people.

    Take a case I testified as a witness in earlier this month; the defendant was innocent, the charges against him were manufactured whole-cloth by his accuser; her story had contradictions and holes that Evel Knievel would have trouble jumping a motorcycle accross; yet the guy faced multiple hearings and came within a hair of being arraigned. He spent thousands of dollars defending himself from charges that even the prosecution admitted in private were bogus.

    A judge in a bad mood, if his accuser was a better liar, or if he hadn't found exculpatory witnesses that were nearby at the time of the incident, and that guy could easily have found himself doing time, unable to afford the money needed to dig out the debris from the dynamited tunnel.

  • ||

    How much will Kelo change? The Constitution authorizes government to take land. Putting an end to that kind of taking would require an amendment to the Constitution.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Correction: the Constitution authorizes government to take land "for public use" and with "just compensation."

    Putting an end to the type of taking in Kelo requires no amendment to the Constitution; rather, it requires adherence to it as written.

  • ||

    ""the Constitution authorizes government to take land "for public use" and with "just compensation."""

    It does. But who gets to decide what just compensation is, and what public use means?

  • Tony||

    Ask one of the resident originalists. It's supposed to be an all-encompassing, perfectly understandable document.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Yeah, because it's so hard to understand the concept that a private corporation buying land to build its big facility on does not, under any definition, constitute use of the land by the public.

    And just compensation - geez, if only there were people who performed the function of determining the fair market value of real property. We could call them, oh, I don't know - maybe something like "appraisers." And where they disagree (which certainly would happen), we could have litigation to determine which value appears to be closest to reality.

    Herp derp.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    And BTW, who says it's "all-encompassing"? There's a lot the Constitution doesn't cover. For example, where does it define who has a right to get married? And where does it confer a power to the fed gov to even make that determination in the first place?

  • ||

    For starters, they need to admit that the current SCOTUS standard of "public purpose" is illegitimate, a de facto, not to mention ultra vires, amendment to the Constitution, which allows takings only for "public use", a (much?) narrower standard.

    Words and their meanings matter. Something without a public "use" (such as residential housing) can have a public "purpose" (such as generating tax revenue).

  • ||

    Yeah. But should SCOTUS be the one making those definitions, the federal government, or the state?

    What I took from Kelo, could be wrong, is that SCOTUS is leaving it up to the state to define those terms. I'm not sure if that's the best way, but I have a hard time disagreeing when the feds leave things to the state. Don't like the CT does ED, vote with your feet.

  • ||

    Every level of government has the duty to make that determination on its own.

    SCOTUS has the last word.

    Its a one-way ratchet, or should be: if any government body determines that an action isn't Constitutional, then it doesn't get done.

    Unfortunately, under the current doctrine of deference, the ratchet has been reversed.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    For starters, they need to admit that the current SCOTUS standard of "public purpose" is illegitimate, a de facto, not to mention ultra vires, amendment to the Constitution, which allows takings only for "public use", a (much?) narrower standard.

    Words and their meanings matter. Something without a public "use" (such as residential housing) can have a public "purpose" (such as generating tax revenue).

    ^THIS^

  • ||

    SCOTUS can't define words very well. Infringed in the second amendment for example.

  • Apatheist||

    Also "no law" in the first.

  • Hugh Akston||

    The Constitution authorizes the government to take land for public use. Kelo expanded that to allow the government to compel a transfer of land from one private party to another for the purpose of realizing higher tax revenues.

  • ||

    Thank you Chief Justice Roberts. By conflating "Public", "Private" and "Good", we now have "The private land is under the auspices of and subject to the whims of the public good. With 'Just' compensation." Just compensation is whatever I it is and the market will either say "Yes" or "No"; otherwise, what the hell is the point of private property and deeds? Some sort of regulatory fee scam?

    This decision is monstrous in the capacity for abject application.

  • BossPup||

    Why are you talking about Roberts? He wasn't even on the Court when Kelo came down.

  • ||

    Chief Justice Roberts.

    John Paul Stevens. Why I make that mistake is beyond me.

  • Mo||

    Not that I agree with this logic, but to play devli's advocate for a bit, you could say that the tax revenue will finance building roads, school or some other nonsense and therefore the government should take you property and give it to Walmart.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Which pretty much is the argument made by the dissent. Under the majority's reasoning, a big commercial facility always will generate more tax revenue than grandma's 68 year-old bungalow with a leaky roof and a termite-infested porch. So the locality always can simply take granny's home and give it to the big commercial developer, since the locality will realize more tax revenue that way.

  • Invisible Finger||

    I'd bet Kelo lasts longer in this world than Scalia.

  • Warty||

    FUCKING MOONSTERS

    Look how stupid Kucinich looks in his protective gear. Fucking little wood-elf prick.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Maybe soon Joe the Plumber will be your congrescritter.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    What a waste. There's some decent-looking hardware there.

    How many of those steel-mill execs do you think are NRA Life Members and have some pretty sweet O/U shotguns?

    Stupid publicity stunt.

  • Warty||

    I would have taken that Thompson off their hands. Idiots.

  • NoVAHockey||

    I shot one of those in Vegas. and then a MP40. no wonder they lost.

  • ||

    Yes. But did you try an StG42?

  • ||

    StG44.
    Sorry.

  • ||

    They melted down a Thompson?!? WHAT THE HELL?

    Such stupidity and waste.

  • Warty||

    Is that a Navy Colt replica? All the drug dealers are rocking cap and ball revolvers these days.

  • GILMORE||

    The one made by Uberti most likely

    http://www.uberti.com/firearms.....t_navy.php

    All the drug dealers are rocking cap and ball revolvers these days.

    Our streets are much safer without replica vintage firearms being wielded by collectors and re-enactment enthusiasts.

  • ||

    Someone once told me that black powder guns were not restricted in DC. I never cared since I live in VA, but thought it would be neat to see people carrying Enfields and Mississippi rifles around M street.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    I'm betting it was not a real Thompson, but likely some kind of modern semi-auto reproduction. Even they would have to know how valuable a Thompson is - and what kind of moron would drop off a Thompson at a gun buy-back program?

  • Warty||

    The barrel length gives it away. It's not like the semi Thompsons are cheap, though - I think they're in the neighborhood of $2k. Morons.

  • ||

    What kind of moron?
    Why, a libtard moron , of course!

  • tarran||

    I used to work there.

    Unless the guns were closely watched from delivery to being tossed in the caster, I can assure you that some would be saved.

    There were a large number of hunters there, and I'm sure they retained their tool-stealing skills in the decade since I left.

  • Warty||

    It's funny how TEAM BLUE threw away an entire generation of union rednecks by threatening to take away their guns. Morons.

  • ||

    But they got gun fearing soccer moms instead. Everything's a tradeoff in KULTUR WAR.

  • Paul||

    And they got the 99%. So...

  • tarran||

    One of the funnier stories from my days there. There was a guy who was an awesome PLC programmer who bought a house in the country, and would have relatives come over every fourth of July for a big bash. One of the things they would do at the big bash was shoot guns, shotguns, hunting rifles, hand guns etc.

    One spring, this family moved in across the road. He thought them OK, but complained that they were not country people and on occasion violated various rules of backwoods etiquette.

    July 4th rolls around. The relatives come over. The barbecue starts. The kids are running around playing various games. People are swimming in the brook. The guns come out.

    The mother across the street calls the cops. She is in hysterics. Her children are in danger, she tearfully tells the 911 operator. The cops show up. The size up the situation. They are visibly baffled. They ask her if the guns were being fired into her property. She says no. They tell her that then there is no crime taking place. One of the cops opines that if he weren't on duty he'd like to join in. She then claims that why yes, they were firing into her property, but stopped after she told them she was calling the cops. Now everyone is upset. One of my friend's sisters-in-law, calls the woman a "stupid bitch". War is declared.

    My friend moved out 6 months later. He had found a dream house 10 miles away, one with neighbors that liked to hunt. He sold his house to another suburbanite family that wanted to enjoy the bucolic pleasures of living out in the country. They were opposed to hunting. The word on the street was that both families grew vegetable gardens that were destroyed by deer, rabbits & raccoons towards the end of summer.

  • Warty||

    The word on the street was that both families grew vegetable gardens that were destroyed by deer, rabbits & raccoons towards the end of summer.

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • ||

    Fuck, I would have made that bitch's life a living hell for calling the cops on me and then lying. Endless days of shooting the loudest guns I had, just to remind her what is legal.

    God damn, what a bitch.

  • tarran||

    My friend's first child was born a few weeks before the incident, so his wife nixed that very form of revenge.

  • ||

    ""AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA""

    Warty beat me to it.

    I'm sure it fell victim to birds and a large variety of smaller bugs.

    I also find it funny when people with no gardening experience tells me they are going to grow an organic garden. It ends up the same way.

  • Warty||

    Whereabouts was this? You have to get pretty far from Cleveland to get away from the suburbanite infestations.

  • tarran||

    I believe he lived in Summit county.

  • ||

    I bought a cabin with 15 acres in rural VA. The land was restricted for hunting, whcih I did not care about too much, so long as I could still shoot my guns. Which I do frequently.

    So, now, it turns out that the folks who put that restriction in the original subdivided plat are very upset with the deer eating all their nice flowers. They want to open the land up for "archery" hunting season. It's just a matter of time before they allow all hunting.

  • ||

    15 acre plots strike me as too small for firearms hunting, even with shotgun slugs. Too many people, too many houses.

  • ||

    Mine is the smallest plot in the original plat. Most are in the 30-40 acre range. And Mrs. Smith's 200 acres right next to mine is a conservation easement. I am shooting into wilderness. And I don't hunt anyway. I'll go to the local range for long range shooting.

  • ||

    Fair enough. I used to hunt (shotgun slugs) for deer outside of Madison, WI. Plots ranged from 20 acres (mine) to maybe a couple hundred.

    One of my neighbors had a huge vegetable garden, under a 10' fence. I used to sit on his back porch during deer season. His wife would bring me coffee. Nice folks. Got a decent 8 pointer there, and shot a doe right off his driveway.

  • GILMORE||

    They were opposed to hunting. The word on the street was that both families grew vegetable gardens that were destroyed by deer, rabbits & raccoons towards the end of summer.

    The story would have ended better if it went:

    ..."Then, one evening, while having a vegetarian barbecue by the light of a full moon, both families were attacked and torn to pieces by packs of starving wolves."

  • ||

    +1 for the wolves.

  • Paul||

    I had some very lovely lesbian friends who dreamed to move out to the country-- and did so. But were continuously horrified by country culture. They were dear friends so I didn't have the heart to counter their narrative, so I just listened to their stories.

    One story they told me is that one afternoon they heard gunshots and immediately called 911. The 911 operator, without missing a breath asked "Uhm, are you in a 'NO SHOOT' zone?"

    My lovely friends were laboring under the misapprehension that the entire lower 48 states were a 'NO SHOOT' zone.

  • ||

    She then claims that why yes, they were firing into her property, but stopped after she told them she was calling the cops.

    And you didn't file a complaint against her for making a false report to the police, why?

  • Paul||

    Yuppies who move to the country to start an organic farm aren't like you and me.

  • tarran||

    Dude, I wasn't there, I just listened to the story while munching donuts at a Friday morning staff meeting.

    Filing police reports against neighbors just wasn't done. You don't teach people polite customs by violating them.

  • ##||

    Isn't that exactly what the neighbor across the street did? Sounds like it was a little late to try teaching these people polite customs. Besides, I would have thought that the police officer that she flip flopped on would have not so politely warned her that she was breaking the law.

  • Beloved Commenter Tim||

    Fast and Furious

  • ||

    The heros, who throw themselves in harms way to save our children from the ovens. They have my undying respect.

  • ||

    Warty, some pictures require explicit warnings. You cruel bastard! I am not sure if I will be able to get the horror out of my mind. The humanity! Those innocent rifles, pistols and shotguns!

  • Beloved Commenter Tim||

    Remember that those are just lifeless, souless things, and nothing to get upset over.
    Too bad about the cool guns though.

  • ||

    +1

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    What drives me nuts is how the name "Scalia" or "Thomas" is such a lightning rod for the progressive left. All you have to is utter either one of those names, and they start having epileptic fits and frothing at the mouth.

    Just take a look at the comments posted on any ABA Journal Online article that even mentions Scalia or Thomas. The progressives come out of the woodwork to be the first and best to bash them.

  • tarran||

    Hey,

    As awful as Scalia is, his attacks on the "liberal" (sic) wing of the court are generally spot on. His expertise in rationalizing serves him well when his opponents do it.

  • ¢||

    It's funny how TEAM BLUE threw away an entire generation of union rednecks by threatening to take away their guns. Morons.

    They replaced them with Mexicans, tattooed dweebs, and housewives with law degrees.

    Worked out fine.

  • Warty||

    Like they'd ever vote for TEAM RED anyway, though.

  • Paul||

    I posted on another thread that was probably already dormant, so I'll ask again here: Where are the papier mache heads of Obama, Biden and Geithner?

    Unfortunately, the media won't read past the words Roe V. Wade so the Kelo remark will be drowned out by the collective sighs of journalists everywhere getting the vapors.

  • ||

    My court has, by my lights, made many mistakes of law during its distinguished two centuries of existence.

    You don't say.

  • Beloved Commenter Tim||

    He did say.

  • ||

    Will this disgusting hypocrite say the same thing about Gonzales v. Raich? I will never forgive him for that blatant, result-oriented turd.

  • ||

    No shit.

    At one time I really liked Scalia. But I can't forgive for Raich either. That was a huge WTF moment.

  • Scalia||

    Drugs are bad, mm'kay?

  • ||

    yea, i have to agree on raich. that was really the perfect example of a case where those who wanted to see an end (federal govt. control over states that legalized medical mj) did everything but completely make up a jusitification.

    i am sorry, but there is NO way somebody growing a plant for their own consumption on their own property because a dr. in the state said they needed it for medical reasons, affects INTERSTATE COMMERCE

    that was just such a letdown. i may not agree with scalia on everything, but he's been pretty consistent on some stuff

    raich was just ridiculous

    it was like penumbras and emanations ^ google

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    At least Thomas was on the right side of that one.

    Although he blew it in Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding.

  • ||

    Fuck Thomas too, the pedophile piece of shit.

  • ||

    But it has made very few mistakes of political judgment, of estimating how far ... it could stretch beyond the text of the constitution without provoking overwhelming public criticism and resistance. Dred Scott...

    What a scumbag piece of shit statist. So much for the originalism that this virulent piece of shit proclaims to follow. Oh and hey stupid douchebag, per Artile IV, Section 2, Clause 3, that was the correct opinion. did it suck? yeah.

  • ||

    Fuck, I am so pissed I can barely write. Regarding Dred Scott, per Artile IV, Section 2, Clause 3, that was the correct outcome.

  • Juice||

    If you read the decision, though, it's full of racist shit, so it was an awful decision. The constitution never mentions race, but the opinion sure did.

  • ||

    Lets come up with a REASONABLENESS criterion for the Court to consider in deliberation. Does the University have anything it could do short of a taking and still achieve its goals? Could they build what they need and keep the small business in its present place to serve the U's community of faculty, staff and students? MUST they destroy the business in order to Win? Suggestions?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement