The Washington Post: Totalitarian Bastards

Here is what the benighted paladins of the WaPo have to say about Kelo v New London:

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires government to pay "just compensation" whenever it takes private property, and the Fort Trumbull residents will be compensated. But it further requires that "takings" be for "public use," and it was this requirement that residents cited in their lawsuit. They contended that the city was taking their land not for any legitimate public use but for the benefit of businesses -- essentially that the government was exchanging one set of private owners for another that would pay more taxes and bring jobs to the city.

The trouble is that there is no good way to distinguish New London's use of eminent domain from assertions of the power that local governments depend on all the time for worthy projects. Railroads, stadiums, inner-city redevelopment plans and land reform efforts all have involved taking land from one owner for the apparently private use of another. As Justice John Paul Stevens noted for a five-justice majority of the court, the justices' response has long been to avoid "rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny" of legislative determinations "in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power."

This is not to say that a "public use" is anything government says it is. If the supposed public use were plainly a pretext for a simple private-sector land transfer, the court would presumably step in.

Really? If this was true how could you possibly state IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH,

However unfortunate New London's plans may prove, stopping the city based on a standardless judicial inquiry into how "public" its purpose really is would be far worse.

So, let me get this straight, you say "Don't worry about government abuse because if they go to far the courts will step in." And in your next breath say "It's not the job of the Court to decide if any Use is public enough." THOSE TWO POSITIONS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE YOU MORONS! If you are not allowed to inquire about how public its purpose is how could you ever stop abuse? The answer is you never could. Which is exactly what the WaPo wants. They are not an advocate for regular citizens and their rights. How could anyone claim otherwise? (It also makes you wonder what the WaPo really thinks about other "standardless" rights we have, like Freedom of Speech or Religion. Today they willingly sign away our property rights in the name of public expediency. What goes tomorrow?)

The Washington Post's attitude can be summed up thusly: "C'mon! The government would never do anything bad."



Were an angry mob of torch bearing citizens to descend upon the offices of the Washington Post and burn them to the ground it would be nothing more than simple justice.

It is too bad simple justice isn't all that likely in our new America.