Recent Supreme Court Decisions

Eminent Domain

The Supreme Court voted to strengthen the power of government to seize private property for commercial developments last Thursday, a sad blow to the rights of the small and middle class property owner. Having known someone who was adversely affected by the use of eminent domain, I think this ruling was truly sad. From the Journal Sentinel article:

The court ruled 5-4 that local governments can buy property, even when it isn’t blighted, as long as the owner is fairly compensated.

I have two problems with this statement. First of all, local governments no longer have to justify their use of eminent domain beyond some sort of “public good.” Every proposed use of eminent domain likely has some benefit to a portion of the public at the expense of robbing the property owner. Furthermore, in my experience, “fair compensation” often means the current market value. I think it should mean fair market value, plus moving expenses, plus an inconvenience bonus. That doesn’t even take into account the emotional toll of losing land that one’s family may have owned for generations, or the feeling of being robbed by the community you’ve helped support and contribute to? All in the name of generating more tax revenue. I wonder when time come when eminent domain is used as a threat to defeat political opposition?

• From the Journal Sentinel: A looser rein on eminent domain
• Summary from the Houston Chronicle: Recent Supreme Court rulings unsettling

***Update***

The house has passed a bill that “would withhold federal money from state and local governments that use powers of eminent domain to force businesses and homeowners to give up their property for commercial uses.” Score one for the little guys!

File-sharing suffers major defeatAnother ruling to benefit mega corporations. If I use a screwdriver to kill someone, should the manufacturer be liable? What if I use my cell phone to threaten someone – should Sanyo be hauled into court? Here is the kicker:

We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright … is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.

Well, I suppose that makes sense – anyone who promotes a crime probably should be held accountable to some degree. However, are the makers of Grokster and Morpheus, et al “promoting its use to infringe copyright?” I don’t think so, anymore than BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen does, or Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide web. I don’t file share to the extent I did in college, but I also don’t feel that software should made illegal, only the actions of those who use it formalicious purposes.

• Link: File-sharing suffers major defeat

US Bans Commandments in Court

Anothing ambigous ruling, although a partial victory for separation of religion and state I suppose. The justices ruled against the display of framed copies of the Commandments, but some displays would be permissible if they were “portrayed neutrally in order to honor America’s legal history”. I’m not sure how they can make such a distinction. It could be argued either way whether a particular display of the Ten Commandments is historical or a declaration of government support. Either way, I don’t find any display of religion in government as neutral, whether it be of Christian or Muslim or whatever origin. How does the atheist or Muslim feel about his or her chances while walking up the court steps past a monument of Christian beliefs? Seems intimidating, to me.

• Link: US bans Commandments in courtroom