Total Mindfuck

This Kelo decision is a tad confusing to us judicially challenged folks, but I think I get the gist of it, and it's a total mindfuck. George Will does a pretty good job of explaining. Here is the NY Times article on the decision.

The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that local government was able to claim property from private owners if they were "justly compensated." That is, if a local government says, "we need to build roads or make public spaces that will benefit the community as a whole, we have the right to "pay off" private landowners." Sounds a little commie to me, but at the same time, the government has a right to make things better for the citizens of a community, if say, one crotchety person insists on making things worse...and it's not like land is stolen or seized, but rather compensated. This is also used for environmental regulations, empowering the local government to make sure private land is not harming the public good.

BUT, and here is where it gets interesting, is that in this particular case, the land that is justly compensated is not technically for "public use." Instead, it for pharmacutical giant Pfizer, who wants to build a plant that will employ thousands of folks from this depressed community. The local government is saying, we must have this land to build the plant to employ our citizens who are poor and hungry.

Hmmm...so a big company is forcing small home owners to sell their property to them to make a big factory? Doesn't this sound like the plot of a Western?

All right, so how do the traditional parties and ideologies interpret this one?

Conservatives, generally viewed as big business advocates AND proponents of judicial restraint, ought to side with Pfzier and the local government - because that would mean the court refuses to intervene with the legislature and big business interests are maintained.

Liberals, on the other hand, should be in favor of the little guy against the big corporation, and are in favor of judicial activism, should encourage the court to intervene and not allow these poor folks to have their property sold if they don't want to sell.

Right? Well, just the opposite occurred, for different reasons altogether.

Conservative justices, O'Conner, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Scalia dissented (I don't know all the details, but apparently O'Conner wrote a scathing dissent) that this law is an abuse of the Takings Clause and that the government cannot forcibly take land from a private individual, that this is a fundamental check on government power and against the framers "Original intention," a cornerstone of conservative jurisprudence. Furthermore, O'Conner worries that land will be seized by corporations and other powerful entities who have "influence" with local governments and encourages local governments to favor rich entities who can pay higher tax amounts.

On the other hand, the more Liberal justices were in favor of the law because it is the right of a local government to spur on development and empower the cities to act in the "public" interest. In this case, the city has determined that it is in the public interest to have a Pfizer plant.

This is tough, tough stuff that I think breaks down all sorts of party and ideological lines. Does this mean LA could pass a law requiring apartment owners to sell their places so Walmart can move in? I guess so. That's pretty wild stuff.

At the same time, in a crumbling, shitty city, the local government ought to be able to make a difference by finding ways to get jobs to the people.

I'd love comments on this one. (just saying that probably means I won't get any).

UPDATE: A forbes/cnn article on the subject. Daily Kos weighs in. I wish it weren't true, but I'm pretty sure the left forms opinions by looking at the right and then choosing the opposite. If the left had any sense of humor, it would see the similarities with George Costanza logic...