Here’s a great analysis of how Roberts could become part of a new “Gang of 3” on the Court:
Thus, the possibility is a Court in the new Term starting in October that has Scalia and Thomas, joined somewhat loosely by Rehnquist, on the most conservative wing, Justices Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens on the most liberal wing, and Roberts somewhat loosely aligned in the center with Kennedy and Breyer.
It’s all tea leaves at this point, but this is interesting nonetheless.
I didn’t think this day would come, but today I find myself agreeing with Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist (and O’Connor) and think that the more liberal-minded justices (Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer, and sort of Kennedy) issued a really asinine decision this morning.
The Court ruled in Kelo v. New London, 5-4, that governmental entities can take private homes for private economic development. The “takings clause” of the Fifth Amendment states: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” A governmental entity has always been allowed to take someone’s private property and provide compensation for doing so, but only if it’s for a “public use” – a highway, a railroad, etc. (There are more examples, but I can’t think of any – I’m far from an expert on the takings clause.) This morning, in an opinion by Justice Stevens (who’s usually one of my favorites), the Court broadly interpreted “public use” and stated that private economic development can be considered a public use if a government entity thinks it is.
What’s weird is that this decision can be interpreted, in one way, as pro-corporation. Meanwhile, Thomas, dissenting, writes, “This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a ‘public use.'”
FYI, Kennedy agreed with the majority, but only based on the specific circumstances of this case. It’s possible that if the facts were a bit different, the decision might have gone the other way.
I don’t know what on earth the majority was thinking with this one.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning that a state cannot prohibt wineries located out of state from shipping wine directly to customers in that state. The decision “is expected to increase the sales of wines over the Internet by small, boutique wineries.”
And I love it when things like this happen:
The majority is Kennedy (author), Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. The dissent is Rehnquist, Stevens, O’Connor, and Thomas.
Scalia versus Thomas! Stevens and Thomas voting together! Dogs and cats living together!
And how often do you see the Supreme Court having to interpret the amendment that repealed Prohibition?
I’ll really have to read the decision.